AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable M.Y. Eqbal, Chief Justice and T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—The State has come up with this appeal against the judgment and order
dated 9.11.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 2994 of 2011, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent
herein to consider her application for appointment on compassionate grounds. The husband of the respondent/writ petitioner, who was working as
a Seaman, died in harness on 5.3.1990. She filed an application for appointment on compassionate grounds on 12.11.1990 and again on
5.6.1991. By proceedings dated 13.9.1996, she was asked to produce relevant documents for being considered for appointment to the post of
Sweeper on compassionate grounds. However, this time, the respondent made a request for appointment of her son, who was studying in IX
Standard at that point of time. The request of the respondent was ultimately rejected by order dated 30.4.2010 on the ground that the application
was belated and in view of G.O. Ms. No. 202 dated 8.10.2007, the same cannot be considered since it was made after the expiry of three years
from the date of death of the deceased employee.
Although the learned single Judge observed that the application for compassionate appointment cannot be considered as a matter of right unless
the person making such application is eligible to be considered as per the relevant rules, but proceeded on the footing that the respondent herein
made the application immediately after the death of her husband and has been pursuing it thereafter, and was also called upon to produce relevant
documents for being considered for appointment to the post of Sweeper in the year 1996. Since she failed to produce the relevant documents, her
case was not considered. Therefore, having favourably considered the application of the respondent made in the year 1990 and coming forward to
consider her for appointment to the post of Sweeper in the year 1996, the respondents cannot now retreat and take shelter under G.O. Ms. No.
202 dated 8.10.2007 for denying her the relief. Taking into consideration the pitiable condition of the respondent post her husband''s death and
desertion by her son, the learned single Judge set aside the order passed by the third respondent and directed him to appoint the respondent as
Sweeper in the existing vacancies within a stipulated period.
Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants assailed the order passed by the learned single Judge stating that
though the respondent made the application for appointment on compassionate grounds on 12.11.1990 and 23.1.1991, she did not produce the
relevant documents. On 13.9.1996, when the appellants called upon the respondent to submit the application in a proper form, she withdrew her
application and sought future employment to her son, by her petition dated 22.10.1996. Subsequently on 29.10.2003, the respondent sought
employment to her son, but she later changed her mind and again sought employment for herself in the year 2007, nearly after 17 years of the
death of her husband. Therefore, the appellants, turned down her request citing G.O. Ms. No. 202 dated 8.10.2007, which stipulates that an
application for compassionate appointment should be made within three years of the death of the Government Servant.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while contending that the order of the learned single Judge was perfectly valid
in law, cited two judgments - one rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. B. Kishore, and the other
one rendered by this Court in the case of Mohanambal Vs. Director, Land and Survey Department, Kancheepuram District and Others, -both on
the lines that the indigent circumstances of the applicant seeking appointment on compassionate grounds should weigh with the authorities while
considering such an application, submitted that the learned single Judge correctly appreciated the factual matrix of the case and issued the direction
for compassionate appointment of the respondent adopting a humanitarian consideration of the matter and in view of the penury suffered by her.
Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the order of the learned single Judge should not be interfered with.
The relevant facts which are not in dispute are summarized hereinbelow:-
(i) On the death of her husband, the respondent/writ petitioner submitted an application on 12.11.1990 seeking her appointment on compassionate
grounds. The State Port Officer, the fourth respondent herein, by Letter No. 6990/A1/90-2 dated 21.12.1990, requested the respondent to
submit certain documents relating to educational qualification, age proof, the legal heir certificate, death certificate, property details certificate and
the certificate of indigent from the Tahsildar.
(ii) Instead of submitting those documents, the respondent made another application on 4.4.1991 on the same ground. Although the respondent
submitted some documents, the same were not relevant and therefore, those documents were returned.
(iii) In the year 1995, by G.O. Ms. No. 120, Labour and Employment Department, dated 26.6.1995, the Government of Tamil Nadu reviewed
the existing scheme and order for compassionate appointment and the same was modified to the extent that the application for appointment on
compassionate grounds should be made within three years of the death of the Government Servant.
(iv) By letter dated 22.10.1996 addressed to the State Port Officer, the respondent withdrew her earlier application and requested that
employment may be given to her son. For better appreciation, the letter dated 22.10.1996 is reproduced hereunder:
From : N. Renukadevi, W/o. Natarajan, 83, Railwayside Road, Vellipalayam, Nagapattinam-611 001.
To: The State Port Officer, Tamil Nadu Maritime Board, Chennai.
Through - Port Officer, Nagapattinam
Sub : Your Letter No. 2925/Al/93 dated 13.9.96-Reg.
Due to my family circumstances and my health condition, I hereby withdraw my application requesting appointment for me on compassionate
ground. Instead of that, I request to provide employment to my son N. Prasath in future. At present, he is 15 years old and studying 9th Standard.
Yours faithfully,
Sd./N. Renukadevi/22.10.96
(v) Again in the year 2003, by letter dated 5.3.2003, the respondent requested the appellants to provide appointment to her son, who had
completed D.E.E.E. and was yet to receive the Certificate.
(vi) Finally, in the year 2007, the respondent by her letter dated 11.6.2007 made a fresh request to appoint her as a Sweeper or Office Helper at
the Maritime Board Office at Naga-pattinam.
(vii) The Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Engineer of the Tamil Nadu Maritime Board, by letter dated 13.2.2008 informed the respondent''s
son that his application for appointment on compassionate grounds could not be considered as the request was made after the lapse of three years
from the date of death of the deceased employee.
From the aforesaid facts, it is manifest that although the respondent widow made the application for her appointment on compassionate grounds
within three years from the date of death of her husband, subsequently in the year 1996, after the expiry of six years, by letter dated 22.10.1996,
she withdrew her application requesting her appointment on compassionate grounds and made a request for appointment of her son who was then
studying in IX Standard. Thereafter, in the year 2007, after the expiry of 17 years, the respondent widow again turned around and made a request
for her appointment as Sweeper or Office Helper at the Maritime Board Office, Nagapattinam. In these facts and circumstances, the only question
that falls for consideration is whether the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge directing the appellants to consider her case for
appointment on compassionate grounds is justified or not.
It is well settled that the object and purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of the
deceased Government Servant and save them from starving because of the sudden death of its bread-earner. The Honourable Supreme Court, in a
catena of decisions, has laid down the purpose and object of compassionate appointment.
In the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, the Supreme Court observed as follows :-
3.... This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide
over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood.
In the case of Director of Education (Secondary) and Another Vs. Pushpendra Kumar and Others, the Supreme Court has held as follows :-
The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the
sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure
humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make
both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such
appointment. Such a provision makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment on the post by following a particular
procedure. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the
general provisions. An exception cannot sub-sume the main provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision by taking
away completely the right conferred by the main provision. Care has, therefore, to be taken that a provision for grant of compassionate
employment, which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions, does not unduly interfere with the right of other persons who are
eligible for appointment to seek employment against the post which would have been available to them, but for the provision enabling appointment
being made on compassionate grounds of the dependant of a deceased employee. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, this
Court has taken note of the object underlying the rules providing for appointment on compassionate grounds and has held that the Government or
the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the
provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family.
In the case of Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and Another, , the Supreme Court held thus :-
3.... The very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship
and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family.
In the case of S. Mohan Vs. Government of T.N. and Another, the Supreme Court has held as follows :-
4.... The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the
compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
In the case of Punjab National Bank and Others Vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, the Supreme Court observed :-
4.... It is to be seen that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of re-cruitment but merely an exception to the requirement
regarding appointments being made on open invitation of application on merits. Basic intention is that on the death of the employee concerned his
family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis.
In the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions referred to above, the relevant portions of which are quoted
hereinbefore, in our view, the right to claim appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be entertained after a lapse of 17 years. As noticed
above, although the respondent applied for compassionate appointment within a reasonable time, after the lapse of about six years, she withdrew
her claim and made a fresh request for appointment for her son on compassionate grounds. In the case of Haryana State Electricity Board Vs.
Naresh Tanwar and Another, heir lordships of the Supreme Court observed thus :-
It has been indicated in the decision of Umesh Kumar Nagpal that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of
reasonable period and the very purpose of compassionate appointment, as an exception to the general rule of open recruitment, is intended to meet
the immediate financial problem being suffered by the members of the family of the deceased employee. In the other decision of this Court in
Jagdish Prasad case, it has been also indicated that the very object of appointment of dependent of deceased employee who died in harness is to
relieve immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family and such consideration cannot
be kept binding for years.
In the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Paras Nath, the Supreme Court observed as follows :-
The purpose of providing employment to a dependant of a government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the
hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such
appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointment. The purpose is to provide
immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government servant. None of these considerations can operate when the application is
made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the present case.
In the case of Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Krishna Devi, it was held by the Supreme Court as follows :-
As the application for employment of her son on compassionate ground was made by the respondent after eight years of death of her husband, we
are of the opinion that it was not to meet the immediate financial need of the family. The High Court did not consider the position of law and
allowed the writ petition relying on an earlier decision of the High Court.
Recently, in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Anil Badyakar and Others, , the Supreme Court, while considering the facts of the case
that the employee died in service in 1981, and after a long squabble between the dependents of the deceased, they arrived at a settlement that the
son-in-law of the second daughter of the deceased, who was unemployed, may request for appointment on compassionate grounds. The request
so made was accepted, but the authority, who was competent to approve the appointment, cancelled the provisional appointment on the ground
that after 12 years from the date of death of the employee, such an appointment could not have been offered to the so called dependent of the
deceased employee. The Supreme Court, therefore, did not interfere with the order passed by the competent authority and set aside the order of
the High Court.
Very recently, in the case of the Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, the Supreme Court observed as under :-
Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind:
(i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request
is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate
appointment dehors the scheme.
(ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of
time.
(iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of
the bread winner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective
of the financial condition of the deceased/ incapacitated employee''s family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be.
(iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/incapacitated employee, viz. parents, spouse, son or
daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts.
We have gone through the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, viz. the one rendered by the Supreme Court in the
case of Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. B. Kishore, and another rendered by a Single Bench of this Court in Mohanambal Vs. Director,
Land and Survey Department, Kancheepuram District and Others, In the former decision, their lordships of the Supreme Court rather have taken
a serious view of the matter and held as under :-
On going through the judgment passed by the High Court, it is evident that it is based on a complete misconception about the scheme of
compassionate appointments. Contrary to the High Court''s observation, indigence of the dependents of the deceased employee is the first pre-
condition to bring the case under the scheme of ""compassionate appointment"". The very purpose and object of the scheme is to provide immediate
succor to the family of an employee that, on his death, may suddenly find itself in a state of destitution. If the element of indigence and the need to
provide immediate assistance for relief from financial deprivation is taken out from the scheme of compassionate appointments, it would turn out to
be a reservation in favour of the dependents of an employee who died while in service which would be directly in conflict with the ideal of equality
guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
So far as the decision of the single Judge of this Court in the latter case is concerned, in our considered opinion, the same will not apply to the
facts of the present case.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are unable to subscribe the view taken by the learned single Judge by passing the impugned order
directing consideration of the application submitted by the respondent after 17 years for compassionate appointment. The impugned order,
therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. For all the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned single
Judge is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2012 is closed.