T.Ravichandran.. v. The Managing Director, Chennai Metropolitan WaterSupply and Sewerage Board

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 18-02-2011CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.43531 of 2006T.Ravichandran.. Petitioner. VersusThe Managing Director,Chennai Metropolitan WaterSupply and Sewerage Board,No.1 Pumping Station RoadChennai-2... Respondent. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution ofIndia seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call forthe records on the file of the respondent in LetterNo.CMW/PMS02/30244/2006, dated 2.9.2006, and quash the same anddirect the respondent to place the petitioner on compassionateappointment.For Petitioner : Ms.Thenmozhi ShivaperumalFor Respondent : Mr.B.Shanthakumar (R1) Senior Counsel for CMWSSBO R D E RThe petitioner has stated that his father P.Nagan had died,on 22.5.2002, while he was employed under the respondent Board.Since, the family of the petitioner was in indigentcircumstances, he had requested the management of the respondentBoard for appointment on compassionate grounds. In spite of theseveral representations made by the petitioner, and even afterhe had produced all the necessary documents, the firstrespondent had issued the impugned letter, dated 2.9.2006,rejecting the request of the petitioner, stating that he shouldhave applied for being appointed on compassionate grounds,within three years from the date of the death of his father. Ithad also been stated that the petitioner should not be over 35years of age. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionerhad submitted that the petitioner had crossed the age limit of35 years only for the reason that there was a ban onrecruitment, as per the relevant government order. After the banimposed by the Government had been relaxed and as the upper agelimit had also been increased by way of the Government orders inG.O.Ms.No.91, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P)Department, dated 6.7.2006, and G.O.Ms.No.98, Personnel andAdministrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 17.7.2006, thepetitioner had become eligible for being appointed oncompassionate grounds. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of therespondent, it had been stated that the State Government hadpassed an order in G.O.Ms.No.120, Labour and EmploymentDepartment, dated 26.6.1995, stating that all appointments oncompassionate grounds should be made within three years from thedeath of the Government servant. Further, the State Government,in G.O.Ms.No.9, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated19.1.1998, had issued orders fixing the age limit of 35 yearsfor the legal heirs of the government servants, for beingappointed on compassionate grounds. It had also been stated thatthe petitioner's application was not accompanied by thenomination letter of the wife of the deceased employee. 4. It had also been stated that the Government of TamilNadu, in its order No.98, P & AR(S) Department, dated 17.7.2006,had issued orders stating that the upper age limit for enteringinto government service shall be relaxed by five years, from thethirty years of age limit fixed earlier, to enable unemployedyouth, who had been affected by the ban order issued, in respectof the recruitments to government jobs. The age concession wouldapply only to those, who were to be appointed in the governmentjobs, by direct recruitment and not for those, who were to begiven appointments on compassionate grounds. 5. It had also been stated that the government order, inG.O.Ms.No.42, Labour and Employment (Q), Department, dated12.3.2007, had extended the period for receiving the applicationfor appointment on compassionate grounds, by three months.However, the petitioner had not applied for being appointed oncompassionate grounds, even during the extended period. Hence,the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. In view of the averments made on behalf of thepetitioner, as well as the respondent and in view of thesubmissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf ofthe parties concerned and in view of the Government Orders citedabove, this Court is of the considered view that the petitionerhas not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs,as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. 7. The petitioner had not shown sufficient cause for thedelay in submitting his application for being appointed oncompassionate grounds. In the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.120,Labour and employment Deparment, dated 26.6.1995, it has beenclearly stated that the application for appointment oncompassionate grounds should be submitted, within three yearsfrom the date of the death of the government servant. Thepetitioner had submitted his application, only on 7.8.2006,after nearly four years from the date of the death of hisfather. Therefore, the reasons stated by the petitioner for notsubmitting his application, within the time limit prescribed bythe Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.120 Labour and Employmentdepartment, dated 26.6.1995, cannot be accepted, as there was nobar on the receipt of such applications. In fact, more than 100applications had been registered by the respondent Board duringthe ban period, from 29.11.2001 to 21.2.2006. Further, nothinghad been shown by the petitioner to substantiate his claim thathis family was in indigent circumstances at the time of thesubmission of the application for appointment on compassionategrounds. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had crossedthe age limit of 35 years fixed by the state government, inG.O.Ms.No.9, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated19.1.1998, for the legal heirs of the government servants, whohad died in harness, for being appointed on compassionategrounds. 8. It is a well settled position in law that compassionateappointments are made only to help the family, which is inindigent circumstances, due to the sudden death of thebreadwinner, while in harness. Such appointments are made onlywith the object of helping the family in distress, following thedeath of the government servant. Since, such appointments are anexception to the general rules of recruitment, such appointmentshave to be made only in strict compliance of the guidelines andthe rules applicable to such appointments. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. The following are some of the recent decisions relatingto appointment on compassionate grounds:5.1. In State Bank of India andanother Vs. Somvir Singh (2007 (4) SCC 778),the Supreme Court had held thatappointment on compassionate grounds is anexception carved out to the generalrule that recruitment to public servicesis to be made in a transparent and accountablemanner, providing opportunity to all eligiblepersons to compete and participate in theselection process. Such appointments arerequired to be made on the basis of openinvitation of applications and merit.Dependants of employees who had died inharness do not have any special or additionalclaim to public services other than the oneconferred, if any, by the employer. The claimfor compassionate appointment and the right,if any, is traceable only to the scheme,executive instructions, rules, etc. framed bythe employer in the matter of providingemployment on compassionate grounds. There isno right of whatsoever nature to claimcompassionate appointment on any ground otherthan the one, if any, conferred by theemployer by way of a scheme or instructions,as the case may be.5.2. In I.G.(Karmik) and others Vs.Prahalad Mani Tripathi (2007(6) SCC 162), theSupreme Court had held that compassionateappointment must be in consonance with theConstitutional scheme of equality enshrined inArticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution ofIndia.5.3. In Union Bank of India and othersVs. M.T.Latheesh (2006(7) SCC 350), theSupreme Court had held that grant ofemployment on compassionate grounds in allcases, would shut the door for employment tothe increasing number of unemployed youth. 5.4. In Mohan Mahto Vs. Central CoalField Ltd., and others (2007(8) SCC 549), theSupreme Court had recognised the fact thatappointment on compassionate grounds are an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ exception to Article 16(1) of the Constitutionof India. 5.5. In State Bank of India and othersVs. Jaspal Kaur (2007(9) SCC 571), the SupremeCourt had held that a major criterion whileappointing a person on compassionate groundsshould be the financial condition of thefamily of the deceased person. The appointmentunder the scheme of compassionate appointmentis at the discretion of the authorityconcerned. The discretion is to be exercisedkeeping in view the scheme and the object andthe rationale behind it. However, it cannotbe claimed as a matter of right. 5.6. In Andhra Pradesh State RoadTransport Corporation, Musheerabad and othersVs. Sarvarunnisa Begum (2008 (3) SCC 402) theSupreme Court, quoting with approval thedecision made in Umesh Kumar Nagpal V. Stateof Haryana (1994 (4) SCC 138), had held thatit has been time and again held thatcompassionate appointments would be given tothe dependants of the deceased who had died inharness, to get over the difficulties on thedeath of the bread earner and that it cannotbe claimed as a matter of right.5.7. "In H.Anwar Basha Vs. The RegistrarGeneral, Madras High Court (2008 (3) CTC 785),a Division Bench of this Court had held thatthe object of compassionate appointment is tomitigate the sufferings of the bereaved familyof the Government servant who had died inharness leaving his family in indigentcircumstances. 10. On analysing the contentions of the learned counselsappearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondentand on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of theconsidered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficientcause or reason to interfere with the impugned order of therespondent, rejecting the request of the petitioner forappointment on compassionate grounds. In such circumstances,there is no substance or merit in the present writ petitionfiled by the petitioner, claiming appointment on compassionate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ grounds. As such, there are no reasons for this Court to holdthat the impugned order of the respondent, rejecting the requestof the petitioner for such appointment, is bad in the eye oflaw. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to bedismissed. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar.cshToThe Managing Director,Chennai Metropolitan WaterSupply and Sewerage Board,No.1, Pumping Station RoadChennai-2.1 cc to Mr.B. Shanthakumar, Advocate, Sr. 125631 cc to M./s. R. Thenmozhi shivakumar, Advocate, Sr. 12180Writ Petition No.43531 of 2006VD (CO)kk 14/3