K.Jayalakshmi v. The Government of Tamilnadurep. & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 30-07-2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.27737 of 2006O.A.No.5266 of 1996K.Jayalakshmi.. Petitioner.Versus1.The Government of Tamilnadurep. by its Secretary,Education Department,Madras-9.2.The Director of School Education,College Road, Madras-6.3.The Chief Educational Officer,Tiruchi... Respondents.Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus,to appoint the applicant herein on compassionate ground as Watchman-cum-Waterman in the Education Department in Tiruchi District or SalemDistrict.For Petitioner : Mrs. Muthumani DoraisamiFor Respondents : Mr.T.Seenivasan Additional Government PleaderO R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.2. It has been stated by the petitioner that her father KrishnaMuthu Raja had died in harness, on 29.11.90, while he was working asa Watchman-cum-Waterman in Government Girls High School, Pugalur,Trichy, leaving behind his wife Malaiammal, Son K.Subramanian and hisdaughter K.Jayalakshmi, who is the petitioner in the present writpetition. Since no member of her family is working and as her family https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has no source of income, she had made several representationsrequesting that she may be appointed on compassionate grounds. Sincethere was a ban in respect of appointment on compassionate grounds,the petitioner had not been appointed. However, the State Government,had not considered the request of the petitioner. Since the ban hadbeen lifted, recently, the petitioner had filed an originalapplication before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, inO.A.No.5266 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.27737 of 2006.3. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, ithas been stated that Krishna Muthu Raja was working as a Watchman-cum-Waterman in Government Girls High School, Pugalur. He had died on29.11.90, while in service. Krishna Muthu Raja had left behind hiswife and two children. His daughter K.Jayalakshmi, who is thepetitioner herein, was already married and having four children.Malaiammal, the widow of Krishna Muthu Raja was sanctioned a sum ofRs.10,000/- as family benefit fund, which was paid on 10.2.81. Shewas also admitted for a family pension of Rs.366/-, by the AccountantGeneral, Chennai. It has also been stated that the TamilnaduGovernment had introduced a scheme in G.O.Ms.No.560, Labour andEmployment, dated 3.8.77, to provide appointment on compassionategrounds to the legal heir of the family of the government servant whohad died in harness, leaving the family in indigent circumstances.According to paragraph-2 of the Government order, the expression`near relative', had included only the wife/husband/son/unmarrieddaughter. A married daughter living with her husband has not beencontemplated as a family member of the deceased government servantsince she belongs to a separate family. The petitioner had beeninformed through the Headmaster, Government Girls High School,Pugalur, in L.Dis.No.4742/A1/90, dated 22.1.91, that she is noteligible for appointment on compassionate grounds on account of thedeath of her father Krishna Muthu Raja, since she was alreadymarried. In such circumstances, there is no merit or substance in theclaims made by the petitioner.4. Considering the submissions made by the learned counselappearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents,and on a perusal of the records available before this Court, it isclear that the petitioner cannot make a valid claim for appointmenton compassionate grounds, based on G.O.Ms.No.560, Labour andEmployment, dated 3.8.77, as it defines a `near relative' aswife/husband/son/unmarried daughter of a government servant, who haddied in harness. Since the petitioner had been married at the time ofthe death of her father, Krishna Muthu Raja, she was not consideredfor appointment on compassionate grounds. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of therespondents, it is seen that the widow of Krishna Muthu Raja had beensanctioned a sum of Rs.10,000/- as family benefit fund, which waspaid to her on 10.2.81. She was also admitted for a family pension ofRs.366/-, by the Accountant General, Chennai, for her livelihood. Itis also seen that the petitioner was aged 44 years in the year 1996when she had filed the original application in O.A.No.5266 of 1996,before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal. At present, she wouldbe aged about 56 years, close to attaining the age of superannuation.Further, the father of the petitioner is said to have died in theyear 1990, while the original application had been filed by thepetitioner before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in the year1996. Even though, it has been stated that the petitioner has beenmaking several representations and that there was a ban onrecruitment by the State Government, it cannot be said that there aresufficient grounds to condone the delay on the part of the petitionerin approaching the Tribunal or the Courts of law to establish herclaims. 6. The following are some of the recent decisions relating toappointment on compassionate grounds:6.1. 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 andaccountable manner, providing opportunity to alleligible persons to compete and participate in theselection process. Such appointments are requiredto be made on the basis of open invitation ofapplications and merit. Dependants of employees whohad died in harness do not have any special oradditional claim to public services other than theone conferred, if any, by the employer. The claimfor compassionate appointment and the right, ifany, is traceable only to the scheme, executiveinstructions, rules, etc. framed by the employer inthe matter of providing employment on compassionategrounds. There is no right of whatsoever nature toclaim compassionate appointment on any ground otherthan the one, if any, conferred by the employer byway of a scheme or instructions, as the case maybe.6.2. In I.G.(Karmik) and others Vs. PrahaladMani Tripathi (2007(6) SCC 162), the Supreme Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ had held that compassionate appointment must be inconsonance with the Constitutional scheme ofequality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of theConstitution of India.6.3. 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. 6.4. 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. 6.5. 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. 6.6. In Andhra Pradesh State Road TransportCorporation, Musheerabad and others Vs.Sarvarunnisa Begum (2008 (3) SCC 402) the SupremeCourt, quoting with approval the decision made inUmesh Kumar Nagpal V. State of Haryana (1994 (4)SCC 138), had held that it has been time and againheld that compassionate appointments would be givento the dependants of the deceased who had died inharness, to get over the difficulties on the deathof the bread earner and that it cannot be claimedas a matter of right.6.7. "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 the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government servant who had died in harness leavinghis family in indigent circumstances. 7. From the various decisions of the Courts of law, it is clearthat compassionate appointments cannot be claimed as a matter ofright. Such appointments are made to provide succour to the family ofthe government servant, who had died in harness, if such family isfound to be in indigent circumstances. However, such appointments areto be made only in accordance with the Rules, Schemes and theGovernment Orders applicable to such appointments.8. In such circumstances, there is no substance or merit in thepresent writ petition filed by the petitioner claiming appointment oncompassionate grounds. In such circumstances, the writ petition isliable to be dismissed. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarcshTo1. The Secretary,Government of TamilnaduEducation Department,Madras-9.2.The Director of School Education,College Road, Madras-6.3.The Chief Educational Officer,Tiruchi.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.41580Writ Petition No.27737 of 2006VS(CO)SMK/27.8.08