Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2644 (MAD)

Devaki v. The Chief Engineer & Another

2010-07-01

M.M.SUNDRESH

body2010
Judgment :- The petitioner herein is the wife of one D.Ramaingam who died on 27.04.1996, while working as an employee of the respondents. At that point of time, the petitioner was working as a Teacher and thereafter she resigned her job and made an application on 01.03.1999 seeking appointment to her son. The said application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was receiving pension due to her retirement and also due to the death of her husband. Challenging the said rejection order, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.6605 of 2001 which was allowed with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the further application of the petitioner dated 21.08.2001 in the light of the board proceedings in B.P.(Ch)No.330 dated 02.11.1993. Again the respondents rejected the said request of the petitioner and hence the present writ petition. 2. Ms.G.Thilakavathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on an earlier occasion, this Honble Court has set aside the order impugned, but the respondents have passed the very same orders. According to the learned counsel a reading of B.P. (Ch)No.330 dated 02.11.1993 would show that the petitioners son is not precluded from being considered for compassionate appointment. The learned counsel further submitted that at the time of the application neither the petitioner nor any other member of the family have been working. 3. Per contra, Mr.B.Sekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that Clause-II of the Board Proceedings in B.P.(Ch)No.330 dated 02.11.1993 clearly states that when a member of the family is already in employment at the time of the death of the Government Servant, then the other dependants of the deceased Government Servant will not be eligible for compassionate appointment. He further submitted that a compassionate appointment has been made in order to tide over the financial difficulties faced by the family of the deceased Government employee and therefore in the present case, there is no such immediate necessity for compassionate appointment. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that no one has got a vested right to seek a compassionate appointment until and unless the scheme provides for the same. According to the learned counsel , the fact that the petitioners family has been living separately from 1996 onwards after the death of the deceased Government servant itself is an important factor to hold that the petitioners son cannot be considered for compassionate appointment. According to the learned counsel , the fact that the petitioners family has been living separately from 1996 onwards after the death of the deceased Government servant itself is an important factor to hold that the petitioners son cannot be considered for compassionate appointment. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgments reported in (2006) 4 M.L.J. 1080 [E.RAMASAMY v. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD] AND (2006) 4 M.L.J. 605 [STATE OF J&K v. SAJAD AHMED MIR]. 5. As submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents in the present case on hand, at the time of the death of the Government servant, the petitioner was working. The petitioner was also receiving pension due to the death of the deceased Government servant and also due to her voluntary retirement. A compassionate appointment cannot be sought for as a matter of right but can only be given based upon the availability of the scheme. The Court cannot grant the relief beyond and de hors the scheme. Such an appointment cannot also be given after elapse of the reasonable period. A compassionate appointment has been given in order to tide over the financial difficulties that would arise due to the untimely death of the Government servant who happens to be the breadwinner of the family. A post cannot be kept vacant to be filled for the heirs of the deceased Government servant. Therefore, a person can seek a compassionate appointment only in a case where the rules and regulations provide for such an appointment, since the appointment would otherwise go to the general category and selection would be made based upon the merit and ability. Hence a compassionate appointment is a exception to the normal role of appointment. 6. In the judgment reported in (2006) 4 M.L.J. 1080 [E.RAMASAMY v. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD], the Division Bench of the Honble High Court was pleased to hold that until and unless the scheme provides for such an appointment, nobody is entitled to a compassionate appointment as a matter of right. 6. In the judgment reported in (2006) 4 M.L.J. 1080 [E.RAMASAMY v. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD], the Division Bench of the Honble High Court was pleased to hold that until and unless the scheme provides for such an appointment, nobody is entitled to a compassionate appointment as a matter of right. Similarly, the Honble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2006) 4 M.L.J. 605 [STATE OF J&K v. SAJAD AHMED MIR] has held that if the family of the deceased Government servant is able to survive for a long number of years after his death thus the said fact by itself is an important factor to be taken into consideration while rejecting the request for compassionate appointment. In the present case on hand admittedly the deceased Government servant died on 27.04.1996. More than 13 years have elapsed after the death of the deceased Government servant. Therefore by applying the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court also the relief sought for cannot be granted. 7. Hence taking into consideration of the above said facts and circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.