Babu v. The Government of Tamilnadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 11-08-2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.2608 of 2001 Babu.. Petitioner. Versus1.The Government of Tamilnadu rep by The Deputy Secretary to GovernmentDepartment of National HighwaysFort St.George, Chennai-9.

The Chief Engineer (General),National Highways and RuralDevelopment Department, Chennai-600 005.

The Divisional Engineer, Office of the National Highwas, Chennai-600 006.

Assistant Divisional Engineer, National Highways Sub D.M.Madras-20... Respondents. Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1strespondent i.e., the Deputy Secretary to Government, Department of National Highways, Fort St.George, Chennai-9, culminating in LetterNo.10434/H.M.1/98-5, dated 25.10.99 and the subsequent memoNo.5133/99/P2, dated 31.1.2000, passed by the third respondent i.e.,Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Chennai-600 006, and quashthe impugned orders and direct the respondents to give an appointmentto the petitioner on compassionate ground in any where in therespondents Department. For Petitioner : Mr.K.BalakrishnanFor Respondents : Mr.T.Seenivasan Additional Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.2. The petitioner has stated that his father Boopathi, who wasemployed as a Gang Mazdoor in the National Highways Section at Gummidipoondi, had died while in service, on 2.5.81. The petitionerwas seven years old at the time when his father had died in harness, leaving behind the petitioner's mother Govindammal and his two youngsisters, Sasikala and Vaijayanthimala. Having completed his 10thstandard in the month of April 1992, the petitioner had applied forappointment on compassionate grounds, on 3.7.95. On receipt of thepetitioner's application, the third respondent had forwarded the sameto the Chief Engineer National Highways and Rural Works Department, Chennai, the second respondent herein. Thereafter, the secondrespondent had sent the proposal to the Deputy Secretary to Government, National Highways, Chennai, along with the petitioner'sapplication and the other relevant documents, for obtaining necessaryorders.

However, the Deputy Secretary to Government, NationalHighways, Chennai, the first respondent herein, by an order, dated25.10.99, had rejected the request of the petitioner, stating thatthe application had been made by the petitioner after 17 years fromthe death of his father, who had died, on 2.5.81, in harness. Thefirst respondent had quoted G.O.Ms.No.120, Labour and EmploymentDepartment, dated 26.6.95, which states that an application forappointment on compassionate grounds should be made within threeyears from the death of the government servant. However, on a perusalof the said Government order, it is clear that it is applicable onlywith regard to government servants, who had died on or after 26.6.95.A Government letter in Letter No.39924/01-95-1, dated 11.10.95,states that the time limit of three years, specified in the Government Order, is applicable only to the dependants of thegovernment servants, who had died while in government service, on orafter 26.6.95 and that the said order is not applicable to pastcases.

In such circumstances, the rejection of the request of thepetitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, by the first andthird respondents, are arbitrary, illegal and void. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner hadsubmitted that the petitioner could not be appointed on compassionategrounds on the death of his father, on 2.5.81, as he was only sevenyears old at that time. Therefore, he had applied for appointment oncompassionate grounds, on 3.7.95, after having completed his 10thstandard. As there is no time limit for an application to be made forappointment on compassionate grounds, the impugned order of the firstrespondent, dated 25.10.99 and that of the third respondent, dated31.1.2000, are arbitrary and illegal. The Government Order inG.O.Ms.No.120, Labour and Employment Department, dated 26.6.95, doesnot apply to the petitioner as it is applicable only in respect of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Government servants who had died in harness, on or after 26.6.95.Therefore, the rejection of the request of the petitioner forappointment on compassionate grounds, quoting G.O.Ms.No.120, Labourand Employment Department, dated 26.6.95, is erroneous and liable tobe set aside.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondents had submitted that the proposal for appointment of thepetitioner on compassionate grounds, made after 17 years from thedate of the death of his father, cannot be entertained. The purposebehind such appointments is to help the family of the deceasedgovernment servant to tide over the financial difficulties, of thefamily, which is in indigent circumstances. Therefore, suchappointments cannot be claimed as a matter of right, especially, after the lapse of a long number of years after the death of the Government servant concerned. Therefore, the impugned orders of thefirst and third respondents, rejecting the request of the petitioner, is in accordance with law and in tune with the decisions of the Supreme Court.

The following are some of the recent decisions relating toappointment on compassionate grounds:5.1. In State Bank of India and anotherVs. Somvir Singh (2007 (4) SCC 778), the Supreme 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.

In Andhra Pradesh State Road TransportCorporation, Musheerabad and others Vs.Sarvarunnisa Begum (2008 (3) SCC 402) the SupremeCourt, quoting with approval the decision made in Umesh 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.5.

"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 Government servant who had died in harness leavinghis family in indigent circumstances. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. 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 the Government Orders applicable to such appointments.7. On analysing the contentions of the learned counsel appearingon behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on aperusal of the records available, this Court is of the consideredview that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason tointerfere with the impugned orders of the first and thirdrespondents, rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointmenton compassionate grounds. The father of the petitioner had died inharness, on 2.5.81, and the petitioner had applied for appointment oncompassionate grounds only on 3.7.95 and it had been rejected by anorder of the first respondent, on 25.10.99, stating that the proposalfor appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds had beensubmitted after a lapse of 17 years.

In such circumstances, there is no substance or merit in thepresent writ petition filed by the petitioner claiming appointment oncompassionate grounds. Therefore, there is no cause or reason forthis Court to set aside the impugned orders of the first and thirdrespondents, rejecting the request of the petitioner for suchappointment. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to bedismissed. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.cshTo1. The Deputy Secretary to GovernmentGovernment of TamilnaduDepartment of National HighwaysFort St.George, Chennai-9.2.The Chief Engineer (General),National Highways and RuralDevelopment Department, Chennai-600 005. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The Divisional Engineer, Office of the National Highwas, Chennai-600 006.4.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, National Highways Sub D.M.Madras-20.+ 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO 44357Writ Petition No.2608 of 2001PUR(CO)SRA(28/08/2008)