Madras High Court
R.Saravanan vs The Executive Director on 29 September, 2022
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.36079 of 2016
and
W.M.P.No. 31004 of 2016
R.Saravanan ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Executive Director,
The Handloom Export Promotion Council,
(Ministry of Textiles)
No: 34 (Old No.:18), Cadhedral Garden Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of
the impugned order dated 26.02.2015 Vide No:HEPC/Admin/2015/2007
passed by the Executive Director, The Handloom Export Promotion Council
and to quash the same and to direct the Handloom Export Promotion
Council the respondent herein to reconsider the application filed by the
petitioner for employment under compassionate grounds within a specified
period ordered by this Court.
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
For Petitioner : Mr.Veangai I.Prakash Raj
For Respondents : No appearance
ORDER
The order of rejection rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment in proceedings dated 26.02.2015 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner states that his mother late Mrs. Dhanalakshmi, was employed in the Handloom Export Promotion Council and died on 27.06.2012. The petitioner submitted an application seeking employment on compassionate grounds on 26.02.2015 along with documents. The said application was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner, at the time of the death of the deceased employee, was a married person and not financially dependant on the deceased employee. Thus the application was rejected.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner is not employed gainfully and therefore he is eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. The application was rejected without any valid reason.
Page 2 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. This Court is of the considered opinion that, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was a married person, even before the death of employee in the year 2012, probably his father also would have employed somewhere in a private sector or otherwise. While so, the authorities formed an opinion, based on the facts and circumstances that the petitioner, who was a married person was not dependant on the deceased employee. As per the Scheme of compassionate appointment, a married person who was not a dependant of the deceased employee is not eligible to secure employment on compassionate grounds.
5. Scheme of compassionate appointment is a concession and can never be claimed as an absolute right. The indigent circumstance is the vital criteria to be considered by the competent authorities while offering appointment on compassionate grounds. Indigent circumstance are to be assessed by conducting a field enquiry, if required and by ascertaining the other circumstance and sources of income available to the family of the deceased employee.
Page 3 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Scheme of compassionate appointment is a concession and cannot be claimed as an absolute right. Scheme being an exception, cannot be expanded for the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds in a larger manner. Large scale compassionate appointment would result in infringement of the Fundamental Rights of the eligible citizen, who all are aspiring to secure public employment through open competitive process. Scheme of compassionate appointment being a concession, to be implemented in a restricted manner, so as to provide appointment only to the families, who all are genuinely in penurious circumstances and in this regard, the authorities competent are bound to conduct field inspections and ascertain the imminent circumstances, warranting an appointment on compassionate grounds. It is not as if one appointment is to be granted to the family of the deceased employee and it is not as if every legal heir can submit the application and thereafter, the appointment is to be considered. Once an application is filed by any one of the legal heir of the deceased employee and the said legal heir became ineligible, it is not as if that other legal legal heir can submit an application irrespective of the length of time. In the event of entertaining such repeated applications for compassionate appointment, the very purpose and object of the scheme would be defeated. The very purpose and object of the scheme of compassionate appointment is Page 4 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of the sudden death of an employee. Therefore, the scheme cannot be expanded nor any consideration is to be shown on misplaced sympathy, which would result in denial of Fundamental Right to all other eligible candidates, who all are longing to secure public employment. Thus, the Courts are not expected to grant compassionate appointment on misplaced sympathy. Such sympathy would result in unconstitutionality. Scheme being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, since there is no merit assessment of the applicant and there is no application of rule of reservation, there is no other assessment is made for appointment on compassionate grounds. In the event of large scale compassionate appointment, the efficiency level in the public administration will also be in stake. The Rule of Reservation, merit assessment and no other assessment has been made and therefore, the large scale appointments causing inefficiency in public administration, which would result in violations of the Constitution provisions, since the Constitution mandates an efficient public administration.
7. Lapse of time would also provide a ground to draw a factual inference that the penurious circumstances aroused on account of the sudden death of an employee became vanished. Thus, Courts have Page 5 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis repeatedly held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after several years.
8. Even to ascertain the indigent circumstances, the pensionary benefits are also to be taken into consideration. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Amrita Sinha in C.A.No.7640 –7641 of 2021 dated 11.12.2021 (2021 15 Scale 174) held in Paragraph No.10 as follows :
“The monthly pension which was payable to the respondent was required to be taken into account in the award of merit points. The Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that pension is paid for past service rendered by the employee and, hence, denial of compassionate appointment on that basis was not justifiable. This reasoning of the Tribunal is fallacious. Undoubtedly, pension is not an act of bounty, but is towards the service which has been rendered by an employee. However, in evaluating a claim for compassionate appointment, it is open to the authorities to evaluate the financial position of the family upon the death while in service. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right.Page 6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis It is provided in order to enable a family to tide over a financial crisis caused by the death of its wage-earner while in service. If the scheme requires that the family pension must be taken into account in evaluating the merits an application, it has to be followed.”
9. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, recently on 05.09.2022, in the case of Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika vs. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union reported in [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 739], wherein in paragraph-8 of its judgment, reiterated the principles to be adopted for providing appointment on compassionate grounds as under:-
“8. Even otherwise, such an appointment to the heirs of the employees on their retirement and/or superannuation shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, compassionate appointment shall always be treated as an exception to the normal method of recruitment. The appointment on compassionate grounds is provided upon the death of an Page 7 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis employee in harness without any kind of security whatsoever. The appointment on compassionate grounds is not automatic and shall be subject to the strict scrutiny of various parameters including the financial position of the family, the economic dependence of the family upon the deceased employee and the avocation of the other members of the family. No one can claim to have a vested right for appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be extended to the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement. If such an appointment is permitted, in that case, outsiders shall never get an appointment and only the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement shall get an appointment and those who are the outsiders shall never get an opportunity to get an appointment though they may be more meritorious and/or well educated and/or more qualified.”
10. Even in yet another recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs. NITIN reported in [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 690] , wherein in paragraphs 20 and 21, it has been Page 8 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis held as under:-
“20. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule of equality, which enables the dependent family members of a medically incapacitated employee who has no option, but to retire, or a deceased employee, to tide over the immediate crisis caused by the incapacitation or death of the breadwinner. Compassionate Appointment excludes equally or more meritorious candidates, much in need of a job, from the zone of consideration. Consideration for compassionate appointment must, therefore, be strictly in accordance with the prevalent rules for compassionate appointment applicable to the deceased/prematurely retired employee.
21. In this case, there is a financial criteria of eligibility for compassionate appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme.
Rules which provide for a financial criteria for appointment on Compassionate ground are valid and lawful rules which have to be construed strictly, as otherwise the quota reserved for compassionate appointment would be filled up excluding others who might be in greater and/or far more acute financial distress.” Page 9 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. In the present case, the father of the writ petitioner was privately employed and the mother was working in the respondent organization. Even during the lifetime of the employee, the petitioner got married and settled separately. That being the factum, the findings of the respondents that the petitioner was not dependant on the deceased employee is in consonance with the principles to be adopted on the scheme of compassionate appointment. Therefore, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the reasons stated in the order impugned. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.09.2022 mrn Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-Speaking order To The Executive Director, The Handloom Export Promotion Council, (Ministry of Textiles) No: 34 (Old No.:18), Cadhedral Garden Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
Page 10 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
mrn W.P.No.36079 of 2016 29.09.2022 Page 11 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis