A.Sundaram v. The Secretary Department of Agriculture Government of Tamilnadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 7.8.2009CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.5128 of 2007 (T)O.A.No.3186 of 2001A.Sundaram .. PetitionerVs.1. The Secretary Department of Agriculture Government of Tamilnadu Fort St. George, Chennai-600 0092. The Director of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai-600 0053. The Joint Director of Agriculture, Thiruchirappalli 20. 4. The Assistant Director of Agriculture Seeds Centre, Ariyalur .. RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for a writ of Certiorari to call for the recordsrelating to the impugned order No.33439/Ve.Ni.4/98-6 dated 29.2.2000passed by the first respondent herein and quash the same and directthe respondent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. For petitioner : Mr.Javid Khan For respondents : Mr.V.Arun Additional Government PleaderO R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner is the son of late K.Azhagappan, who was employedas a Watchman in Alanthur, under the control of the fourthrespondent. He had died in harness, on 3.1.1983. At the time of his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ death, K.Azhagappan, had left behind his wife Kaliammal, four sonsand a daughter, as his legal heirs. The petitioner's elder brother,A. Chitrarasu, was married at the time of the death of his fatherand he was living separately with his family. However, thepetitioner, his mother and his two brothers and a sister weredependents on the deceased employee. In such circumstances, thepetitioner's mother, namely, Kaliammal, had submitted arepresentation, dated 16.6.1983, to the fourth respondent, requestingfor employment for the petitioner, on compassionate grounds. However,since no action had been taken on the representation sent by thepetitioner's mother, the petitioner had submitted a representation,dated 7.10.1983, addressed to the second respondent requesting him toconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionategrounds, so as to enable him to maintain his mother, his brother andhis sister. Thereafter, several representations had been sent to theauthorities concerned, to appoint the petitioner on compassionategrounds. However, by an order, dated 29.2.2000, the first respondenthad rejected the request of the petitioner stating that the requestfor appointment on compassionate grounds has been made, belatedly,after a period of nine years after the death of the employeeconcerned. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred anoriginal application in O.A.No.3186 of 2001, before the Tamil NaduAdministrative Tribunal, which has been transferred to this Court andrenumbered as W.P.No.5128 of 2007.3. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of therespondents. However, the learned counsel for the respondents hadsubmitted that the claim of the petitioner for appointment oncompassionate grounds is highly belated. Therefore, it was rightlyrejected by the first respondent by his impugned order, dated29.2.2000. 4. The following are some of the recent decisions relating toappointments on compassionate grounds.4.1. In State Bank of India and anotherVs. Somvir Singh (2007 (4) SCC 778), theSupreme Court had held that appointment oncompassionate grounds is an exception carvedout to the general rule that recruitment topublic services is to be made in a transparent and accountable manner,providing opportunity to all eligible persons tocompete and participate in the selection process.Such appointments are required to be made on thebasis of open invitation of applications and merit.Dependants of employees who had died in harness donot have any special or additional claim to publicservices other than the one conferred, if any, bythe employer. The claim for compassionate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appointment and the right, if any, is traceableonly to the scheme, executive instructions, rules,etc. framed by the employer in the matter ofproviding employment on compassionate grounds.There is no right of whatsoever nature to claimcompassionate appointment on any ground other thanthe one, if any, conferred by the employer by wayof a scheme or instructions, as the case may be.4.2. In I.G.(Karmik) and others Vs. PrahaladMani Tripathi (2007(6) SCC 162), the Supreme Courthad held that compassionate appointment must be inconsonance with the Constitutional scheme ofequality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of theConstitution of India.4.3. In Union Bank of India and others Vs.M.T.Latheesh (2006(7) SCC 350), the Supreme Courthad held that grant of employment on compassionategrounds in all cases, would shut the door foremployment to the increasing number of unemployedyouth. 4.4. In Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coal FieldLtd., and others (2007(8) SCC 549), the SupremeCourt had recognised the fact that appointment oncompassionate grounds are an exception to Article16(1) of the Constitution of India. 4.5. In State Bank of India and others Vs.Jaspal Kaur (2007(9) SCC 571), the Supreme Courthad held that a major criterion while appointing aperson on compassionate grounds should be thefinancial condition of the family of the deceasedperson. The appointment under the scheme ofcompassionate appointment is at the discretion ofthe authority concerned. The discretion is to beexercised keeping in view the scheme and the objectand the rationale behind it. However, it cannot beclaimed as a matter of right. 4.6. "In H.Anwar Basha Vs. The RegistrarGeneral, Madras High Court (2008 (3) CTC 785), aDivision Bench of this Court had held that theobject of compassionate appointment is to mitigatethe sufferings of the bereaved family of theGovernment servant who had died in harness leavinghis family in indigent circumstances. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing on behalf of the parties concerned and in view of thedecisions rendered by the Courts of law and on a perusal of therecords available, this Court is of the considered view that therequest of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate groundscannot be entertained by the respondents after nearly nine years fromthe death of the petitioner's father, who had died in harness, on3.1.1983. The purpose for which such appointments are made, byrelaxing the rules applicable to the regular process of recruitment,would be defeated if the request of the petitioner is entertained,after a lapse of many years. The scheme for compassionate appointmenthas been formulated to help the family of the deceased employee, totide over the crisis arising due to the sudden death of thebreadwinner of the family. 6. The appointments on compassionate grounds are made in orderto alleviate the sufferings of the members of the family of thedeceased employee, who are in indigent circumstances. Further, theappointments on compassionate grounds can be made only in accordancewith the rules and regulations and the Government orders applicableto such appointment. In the present case, as seen from the records,the petitioner is said to have made a representation for appointmenton compassionate grounds, belatedly, after a period of nine yearsfrom the death of his father, K.Azhagappan, who had died in harness,on 3.1.1983. Since the appointment on compassionate grounds is anexception to the general rules of recruitment, it has to be exercisedonly in deserving cases, in accordance with the rules and regulationsapplicable to such appointment. 7. In such circumstances, since the claim of the petitioner, forappointment on compassionate grounds, is devoid of merits, the witpetition stands dismissed. No costs.Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Secretary Department of Agriculture Government of Tamilnadu Fort St. George, Chennai-600 0092. The Director of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The Joint Director of Agriculture, Thiruchirappalli 20. 4. The Assistant Director of Agriculture Seeds Centre, Ariyalur+ 1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.37172.+ 2 cc to Mr. Javidkhan, Advocate SR.36976.Writ Petition No.5128 of 2007 (T)O.A.No.3186 of 2001KJi(CO)EU 26.8.2009.