Madras High Court
The Superintending Engineer vs V.Jaya on 8 August, 2007
Bench: P.D.Dinakaran, P.R.Shivakumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08/08/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR WRIT APPEAL (MD) No.309 of 2007 The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, Madurai. .. Appellant Respondent vs. V.Jaya, W/o.Late R.Vijayan .. Respondent Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.08.2006 made in W.P.(MD)No.1335 of 2006. !For Appellant ... Mr.V.Pannerselvam ^For Respondent ... Mr.G.Madhavan for Mr.Ravichandran. :JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN,J) Refusal of compassionate appointment to the respondent/writ petitioner by the appellant, namely the Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, Madurai, in his proceedings dated 03.06.2005, has been drawn for our consideration, as an issue, in the above appeal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the writ petition.
2.1.The writ petitioner's husband died on 05.10.1999 while he was discharging his duty as a Helper in the respondent Electricity Board. She applied for appointment on compassionate ground 15.11.2000, but the same was rejected on the ground that she did not possess the minimum educational qualification, namely a pass in 8th standard. The hapless widow/the writ petitioner again applied for employment on compassionate ground, but her request was turned down once again on the same ground by the proceedings of the respondent dated 07.03.2002. The writ petitioner therefore passed 8th standard examination on private studies in December, 2004 and again applied for appointment on compassionate ground. But, the respondent, by his proceedings dated 03.06.2005, rejected the request of the writ petitioner on the ground that she had not submitted her application within three years from the date of death of her husband.
2.2.Hence, the writ petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(MD)No.1335/2006 to quash the proceedings dated 03.06.2005 and for a direction to the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in a suitable post.
3.1.The learned Single Judge, by order dated 10.08.2006, made in W.P.(MD)No.1335/2006, after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly taking note of the earlier orders of this Court relating to the appointment on compassionate ground and the order the Apex Court in SLP No.6387 of 2005, dated 04.04.2005, confirming the order of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.4008/2004, quashed the order of the respondent dated 30.06.2005 and directed the respondent to appoint the writ petitioner in a suitable post within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
3.2.After nearly one year from the date of the order of the learned Single Judge, the respondent has chosen to file the present writ appeal without complying with the directions of the learned Single Judge.
4.The core contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent is that in the matter of appointment on compassionate ground, the claim by a member of the deceased family cannot be considered de hors the provisions of the scheme in force governed by rules and regulations, particularly when an application is made after the period of three years, as in the instant case and, therefore, the respondent is justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.
5.There cannot be any dispute as to the proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent that neither the respondent Board nor any authority, much less the State, can be compelled to fill-up any appointment on compassionate ground de hors the provisions of the scheme in force governed by Rules and Guidelines.
6.It is true that High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointment on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplates such appointment - vide AIR 1994 SC 2148 - Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Asha Ramachandra Ambedkar (Mrs) and another; and that as a rule in public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of application and merit and the appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of employee while inservice leaving his family without any means of livelihood - vide [1994 (4) SCC 138 - Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others].
7.However, in a case of request for appointment on compassionate ground, however, the Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot ignore the very purpose of providing employment on compassionate ground to the dependant of an employee/government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else as it is done so in order to mitigate the hardship to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. The concept of compassionate employment is intended to alleviate the distress of the family and it is for such purpose appointments are permissible and provided even in the rules and regulations and any rigid approach or too technical objections may defeat the very object of the scheme. It is for that purpose while considering the request for compassionate appointment, the authorities are expected to act as a Good Samaritan overlooking the cobwebs of technicalities.
8.What all the Court has to look into is whether the case of the writ petitioner comes under an exception for providing appointment on compassionate ground to mitigate the hardships due to the death of the bread- winner of the family would be smashed.
9.Of course, reliance is placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in K.Ramasamy vs. T.N.E.B. - (2006) 4 MLJ 1080, where a writ of mandamus was sought for to keep on post vacant for appointment to the son of the deceased employee who is aged 11 years. In our considered opinion, the ratio laid down in the said case is not applicable to the facts of the present case set out supra.
10.But, here is the case where a widow of an employee of the respondent Board has approached the Board as early as on 15.11.2000, i.e. within 13 months from the date of death of her husband; but her request was turned down on the ground that she lacks the minimum educational qualification, namely a pass in 8th standard. Hence, she also completed her 8th standard and again renewed her request. But, this time the request was rejected on the ground that she did not apply within three years from the date of death of her husband, which necessitates this Court to interfere in the matter as the authorities obviously overlooked the very intention behind the provisions made for appointment on compassionate ground on the death of the employee concerned i.e. to enable the family to get over the sudden financial crisis - [2004 (7) SCC 265 - Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja]. The exception to rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and it is based on the doctrine of Legitimate Expectation and it is based on the change in the status and affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned - 1994 (4) SCC - Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Others).
11.With this background, we find that the respondent had failed to adopt Good Samaritan approach ignoring the fact that she was constantly making a request for appointment to the suitable post, even if it is the lowest in the cadre, as early as from 15.11.2000 i.e. within 13 months from the date of death of her husband, which has not been dealt with in proper perspective as observed above.
12.For all these reasons, while rejecting the writ appeal, we direct the appellant to consider the case of the respondent/writ petitioner for a suitable post in their Electricity Board, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2007 is also rejected.
gb.
To:
The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, T.N.E.B.,Madurai.