THE HONOURABLE MR v. G.Madheshwaran2. The Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 22.3.2006CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARW.P.No.28535 of 20031. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.2. The Director of Rural Development, Chennai-15.3. The District Collector, Namakkal District. .. Petitionersvs.1. G.Madheshwaran2. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai-104. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, as statedtherein.For petitioners : Mr.V.Raghupathy, Govt. PleaderFor respondents : Mr.M.Ravi for R-1 R-2 TribunalORDERR.SUDHAKAR,J.The writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of awrit of certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the orderdated 14.6.2002 made in O.A.No.1873 of 2000 on the file of the TamilNadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, the second respondent hereinand quash the same.2. The writ petition has been filed by (i) the State ofTamil Nadu, represented by Secretary to Government, RuralDevelopment Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9, (ii) the Directorof Rural Development, Chennai-15 and (iii) the District Collector,Namakkal District, aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, wherein,the petitioners were directed by the Tribunal to consider the caseof the first respondent for compassionate appointment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. It is the case of the first respondent, the applicantbefore the Tribunal that his father while he was working as Teacherin the Panchayat Union Elementary School, Senthamangalam, NamakkalDistrict, died in harness on 30.9.1974. The first respondent hailsfrom a Scheduled Caste community and living in a downtroddencondition and all his elder brother and sisters were young in ageand they did not get educated due to indigent circumstances.Therefore, they were making a living by working as Coolies. Thefirst respondent who is the last of the brothers, was able toundergo some education by the help of his family members. The firstrespondent completed Higher Secondary Course and Diploma inElectronics and Communication Engineering. The first respondent wasborn on 6.6.1974 and he was just three months old when his fatherdied on 30.9.1974. The older brother and sisters were also veryyoung. The mother, an illiterate, did not apply for compassionateappointment. This was only due to her ignorance and social status.The first respondent's contention is that he has completed HigherSecondary Course in the year 1998 and thereafter, he was aware ofthe provision of compassionate appointment and therefore, he made arepresentation to the authorities seeking appointment to the post ofJunior Assistant on the ground of compassionate appointment.4. The Tahsildar, Namakkal Taluk, on the basis of a detailedenquiry, by his proceedings dated 24.9.1998 has reported that noperson from the first respondent's family was working in Governmentorganisation and that they have no movable or immovable property. Healso reported that the first respondent's family was living in athatched house and the only source of income is the family pensionof Rs.1,376/-. In this view of the matter, the case of the firstrespondent is that they are living in poverty and in the backgroundof their social status, they had no occasion to seek for any legalremedy or seek compassionate appointment. It is also the case ofthe first respondent that the elder brother and sisters were alsoilliterates and they have given their "no objection" for the firstrespondent being appointed on compassionate grounds. The case of thefirst respondent is also supported by certificate issued by theHeadmaster of the Panchayat Union Elementary School, Senthamangalam,Namakkal District. The claim of the first respondent for appointmentunder the compassionate grounds was considered by the relevantauthorities, namely the third petitioner, the District Collector,Namakkal, by proceedings dated 8.12.1999, referring to the letter ofthe Government and the Director of Rural Welfare Department (thefirst and second petitioners herein), rejected the representationfor appointment on compassionate grounds. The reason given by theCollector is extracted hereunder:"Thiru.R.Ganesan died on 30.9.1974 whileworking as Primary School Teacher in NamakkalDistrict, Senthamangalam Panchayat Union. Noneof his legal heirs had sought for appointment oncompassionate grounds immediately. Only the lastlegal heir, namely G.Madheswaran has appliedafter 24 years. Madheswaran has passed S.S.L.C. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in the year 1990 and he has not sought for anysuch appointment. However, the same has beenmade in the year 1998. Therefore, it can beinferred that the family is not in indigentcircumstances and the claim is rejected." 5. The main contention of the petitioners is that the claimfor compassionate appointment is belated, (i.e.) 24 years, as theemployee concerned, the teacher, had died in the year 1974. Thereason for compassionate appointment, according to the Government,is to ameliorate the grievance of the family whose breadwinner haddied in harness and in view of the indigent circumstances prevailingat the time of death, the compassionate appointment will be made.However, in this case, the claim for compassionate appointment ismade after more than two decades and therefore, it was rejected. Thepetitioners have also relied on the Government LetterNo.39924/Q1/95-1, Labour and Employment Department, dated 11.10.1995to state that the time limit of three years is applicable for suchappointment.6. The Tribunal, while considering the claim of the firstrespondent, in paragraphs 6 and 7 held as follows:"6. It is an admitted fact that afterthe scheme of compassionate appointment isintroduced various Government orders were issuedby the Government. The conditions ofcompassionate appointment are that the family ofthe deceased Government Servants should be inindigent circumstances, and none of the membersof the family should be in either Government orPrivate Organisation employment. The personapplying for the post should be the legal heirof the deceased Government Servant. Here inthis case, the applicant satisfied all theconditions. The only reason for non-consideration of his request is that he has madethe application after 24 years of the death ofthe Government Servant. Just because theapplicant made the application after 24 years,it does not mean, that the applicant's family isnot in indigent circumstances. The list ofpeople below poverty line has been produced bythe applicant's counsel. The said list wasprepared by the additional Block DevelopmentOfficer, Namakkal, on 11.6.1999. The name of theapplicant's mother with whom the applicant alsoresides as a family is listed in the list offamilies coming below the poverty line. Thisshows that the applicant's family is in indigentcircumstances. Just because the family survivesfor 24 years, that does not mean the family isnot in indigent circumstances. In a village,even a person who is doing Agriculture cooly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ work survives. Mere survival cannot be a reasonfor coming to a conclusion that the family isnot in indigent circumstances. The G.O., issuedin the year 1995 and thereafter, and letterissued by the Government fixing some time limitfor making application for compassionateappointment will be applicable to cases ofGovernment servants who died in harness onlyafter 1995. That is not applicable to the caseof the applicant as his father died prior to1974. 7. Considering all the above facts, itis very clear that the applicant's family is inindigent circumstances and in below poverty linecategory and none of the members of theapplicant's family is either in Governmentservice or in any other service. The applicantis a legal heir of the deceased GovernmentServant. Therefore, it is very clear that theapplicant satisfied all the conditions forcompassionate appointment. Therefore, theimpugned order is set aside. The respondents aredirected to consider the case of the applicantfor appointment on compassionate grounds asuitable post according to his qualification.The O.A. is allowed. "7. It is not disputed that at the time of considering theclaim of the first respondent in the year 1998, the G.O. prescribingthe time limit has already come into force. Therefore, thepetitioners have rejected the claim as belated. However, theTribunal, relying on the relevant G.Os. applicable prior to 1995with regard to the appointment on compassionate grounds, held thatthe claim of the first respondent's family that they are in indigentcircumstances, is acceptable. The reasons have already been set outabove.8. As regards the belated claim of the first respondent,the Tribunal, relied on the recommendation of the variousauthorities that the first respondent's family comes under "belowpoverty line" and the family will consequentially fall under thecategory of indigent circumstances and therefore, the Tribunal wouldcondone the delay of 24 years in making the claim for compassionateappointment. The Tribunal was of the view that the G.O. of the year1995 will operate prospectively and not retrospectively. No doubt,the Tribunal's conclusion in the facts and circumstances, islaudable and we express the same sentiments as that of the Tribunal.We are unable to agree with the findings of the Tribunal in view ofthe settled position of law with regard to compassionateappointment.9. The claim of the first respondent will have to beconsidered in the light of the relevant Government Orders and therules and regulations pertaining to compassionate appointment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. The question relating to compassionate appointment hasbeen considered by the Supreme Court in several cases. In 1994 (4)SCC 138 (UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS), it wasobserved:" ... Neither theGovernments nor the publicauthorities are at liberty tofollow any other procedure orrelax the qualifications laid downby the rules for the post.However, to this general rulewhich is to be followed strictlyin every case, there are someexceptions carved out in theinterests of justice and to meetcertain contingencies. One suchexception is in favour of thedependants of an employee dying inharness and leaving his family inpenury and without any means oflivelihood. In such cases, out ofpure humanitarian considerationtaking into consideration the factthat unless some source oflivelihood is provided, the familywould not be able to make bothends meet, a provision is made inthe rules to provide gainfulemployment to one of thedependants of the deceased who maybe eligible for such employment.The whole object of grantingcompassionate employment is thusto enable the family to tide overthe sudden crisis. The object isnot to give a member of suchfamily a post much less a post forpost held by the deceased. What isfurther, mere death of an employeein harness does not entitle hisfamily to such source oflivelihood. The Government or thepublic authority concerned has toexamine the financial condition ofthe family of the deceased, and itis only if it is satisfied, thatbut for the provision ofemployment, the family will not beable to meet the crisis that a jobis to be offered to the eligiblemember of the family." (emphasis added) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. In 1998 (5) SCC 192 (DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (SECONDAY)AND ANOTHER v. PUSHPENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS), it was observed :" ... In Umesh KumarNagpal v. State of Haryana thisCourt has taken note of theobject underlying the rulesproviding for appointment oncompassionate grounds and hasheld that the Government or thepublic authority concerned hasto examine the financialcondition of the family of thedeceased and it is only if itis satisfied, that but for theprovision of employment, thefamily will not be able to meetthe crisis that a job is to beoffered to the eligible memberof the family."12. In 1998 (2) SCC 412 (STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS v. PARASNATH) it was observed:"..... 5. The purpose ofproviding employment to adependant of a government servantdying in harness in preference toanybody else, is to mitigate thehardship caused to the family ofthe employee on account of hisunexpected death while still inservice. To alleviate thedistress of the family, suchappointments are permissible oncompassionate grounds providedthere are Rules providing forsuch appointment. The purpose isto provide immediate financialassistance to the family of adeceased government servant.None of these considerations canoperate when the application ismade after a long period of timesuch as seventeen years in thepresent case. 6. We may, in this connection,refer to only one judgment of thisCourt in the case of Union of Indiav. Bhagwan Singh. In this case,the application for appointment onsimilar compassionate grounds was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ made twenty years after the railwayservant's death. This Courtobserved:"The reason for makingcompassionate appointment, whichis exceptional, is to provideimmediate financial assistanceto the family of a governmentservant who dies in harness,when there is no other earningmember in the family."7. No such considerationswould normally operate seventeenyears after the death of thegovernment servant. The HighCourt was, therefore, not rightin granting any relief to therespondents."13. In the present case, the application for appointmentunder compassionate grounds has been filed after 24 years. The widowof the employee who died in harness has not opted for suchappointment. The reason given by the Collector is also in line withthe various decisions of the Apex Court referred to above.14. The object behind compassionate appointment has been inno uncertain terms explained by the various judgments of the SupremeCourt referred to above, namely the purpose of such appointment isto provide financial assistance to the family of the deceasedGovernment servant at the time of his death in indigentcircumstances. As observed by the Apex Court, such considerationwill not arise if the claim is made after a long period of time. Inthis case, it is after 24 years. The object behind the compassionateappointment would be lost if the legal heirs of the deceasedemployee are allowed to seek compassionate appointment at any lengthof time. Only in such view of the matter, the Government in the year1995, clarified that the application for compassionate appointmentshould be made within a period of three years from the date of theemployee dying in harness. Therefore, the benevolent provision ofthe compassionate appointment cannot be said to be made applicablewithout any time limit. 15. We therefore find no justification in the order of theTribunal directing the authorities concerned to provide employmentto the first respondent on compassionate grounds after more than 24years from the date on which the employee-Teacher died in harness. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Hence, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The writpetition is allowed. No costs. csSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.2. The Director of Rural Development, Chennai-15.3. The District Collector, Namakkal District.+ one cc to Mr.M.Ravi, Advocate Sr.No.14382.+ one cc to The Government Pleader, High Court, Madras, Sr.No.14566.PPV (CO)RSM/12.4.2006W.P.No.28535 of 2003