Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Madras High Court

S.Arunkumar vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 14 July, 2022

Author: S.M.Subramaniam

Bench: S.M.Subramaniam

                                                                                   Order dated : 14.07.2022
                                                                             Writ Petition No.31594 of 2014

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 14.07.2022

                                                      CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                           Writ Petition No.31594 of 2014
                                                         and
                                                 M.P.No.1 of 2014

                S.Arunkumar                                                          ... Petitioner

                                                          Vs.

                1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
                  represented by
                  Principal Secretary to Government,
                  Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department,
                  Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

                2.The Commissioner of Rural Development &
                   Panchayat Raj Department,
                  Chepauk, Chennai - 15.

                3.The District Collector,
                  Trichy District,
                  Trichy.                                                            ... Respondents

                PRAYER:
                          Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
                to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the
                respondents in connection with the proceedings of the first respondent issued in
                Government Letter No.23780/E3/2013-3 Rural Development and Panchayat

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/8
                                                                               Order dated : 14.07.2022
                                                                         Writ Petition No.31594 of 2014

                Raj (E3) Department, dated 20.01.2014 and quash the same and consequently,
                direct the respondents herein to provide the compassionate appointment to the
                petitioner herein, commensurate with his qualification and eligibility within a
                limited time frame.
                                  For Petitioner   :     Mr.P.Kumaravel
                                                         for Mr.M.Ravi
                                  For Respondents :      Mrs.R.L.Karthika,
                                                         Government Advocate
                                                        *****

                                                       ORDER

The order of rejection rejecting the claim of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that his mother Tmt.S.Manonmani was working as Assistant in the office of the Manikandam Panchayat Union, Trichy District and died on 14.09.1993 while she was in service. On account of the sudden death of the petitioner's mother, the family was in penury circumstances and therefore, the petitioner, during the relevant point of time, submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground on 19.07.1995. The said application was not considered. However, the petitioner approached the authorities repeatedly for several years and finally, the order impugned dated 20.01.2014 was passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/8 Order dated : 14.07.2022 Writ Petition No.31594 of 2014 the application itself was submitted after a lapse of about 14 years and the application originally submitted within the period of three years i.e. on 19.07.1995 was not considered as the petitioner was not eligible for appointment during the relevant point of time. The petitioner was a minor at the time of death of the deceased employee. Thus, his case was not considered based on the original application dated 19.07.1995 and the application itself became invalid.

3. The admitted facts are that the mother of the petitioner died on 14.09.1993. The petitioner submitted an application on 19.07.1995 when he was a minor and therefore, the application itself became invalid. The second application was submitted on attaining majority and beyond the period of three years and more so, after a lapse of 14 years. Thus, the said application was rejected on the ground that as per the scheme of compassionate appointment, an application is to be submitted within a period of three years from the date of death of the deceased employee.

4. Compassionate appointment is an exception and a concession. Scheme of compassionate appointment is not an absolute right, so also, concession can https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/8 Order dated : 14.07.2022 Writ Petition No.31594 of 2014 never be claimed as a matter of right. Scheme of compassionate appointment is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The scheme, being a concession, is to be implemented strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated. In the event of any lapse in implementing the scheme, the fundamental rights of the citizen of our great nation for securing public employment through open competition process are infringed. Thus, equality clause enunciated in the Constitution is to be followed scrupulously while undertaking the process of appointments. The scheme of compassionate appointment and its object is to mitigate the circumstances arising out on account of the sudden death of a Government employee. Thus, efflux of time is also a ground to draw a factual inference that the penury circumstances aroused on account of sudden death of the employee became vanished. Thus, compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of several years as the main criteria for compassionate appointment is the indigent circumstances aroused on account of the sudden death of an employee, which is to be established by the person seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The indigent circumstances must be related to the death of the employee concerned. That exactly is the reason why the Courts have held that beyond a reasonable period, appointment on compassionate ground cannot be given. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8 Order dated : 14.07.2022 Writ Petition No.31594 of 2014

5. Compassionate appointments are made without conducting any selection process. Merit assessments are not made. No other verifications are conducted. Rule of reservation has not been followed. Thus, appointments in large scale on compassionate ground would affect efficiency in the public administration. Efficiency in public administration is the constitutional mandate. Every public institute is expected to serve efficiently to the public at large. In the event of large scale back door appointments or appointments on such special schemes would result in inefficiency in public administration and furthermore, the constitutional requirement including the rule of reservation has been violated. For example, if 100 persons are appointed on compassionate ground, the eligible reserved category candidates are losing their opportunity in accordance with the rule of reservation. Therefore, all these aspects are to be borne in mind while considering the application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The Government is also expected to restrict the special schemes like compassionate appointment scheme in order to ensure equal opportunity in public employment to all the eligible candidates, who are all aspiring and longing to secure public employment through open competition process.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/8 Order dated : 14.07.2022 Writ Petition No.31594 of 2014

6. In the present case, the mother of the petitioner died on 14.09.1993. At the time of death of the petitioner, the father was employed. Therefore, the family cannot be considered as if in indigent circumstances. That apart, the petitioner submitted an application beyond the period of three years and more so, after lapse of 14 years. Now after lapse of 29 years from the date of death of the deceased employee, appointment on compassionate ground cannot be granted to the petitioner.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

14.07.2022 Index : Yes Speaking / Non Speaking order gm https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/8 Order dated : 14.07.2022 Writ Petition No.31594 of 2014 To

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

2.The Commissioner of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Chepauk, Chennai - 15.

3.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/8 Order dated : 14.07.2022 Writ Petition No.31594 of 2014 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM., J gm Writ Petition No.31594 of 2014 14.07.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/8