Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 485 (MAD)

K. Srinivasan v. Secretary to Government

2014-02-25

M.VENUGOPAL

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ of Mandamus praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to appoint him on compassionate grounds in any suitable post based on his qualification. 2. The Petitioner's father served as Work Inspector in the Respondent Department from 16.01.1961 at Aranthangi Division. His services were provincialised from 2.11.1970 and necessary entries were made in the service records. While that being so, on 06.06.1975, the Petitioner's father S.Alwar, died. All the retirement benefits including family pension is being paid to the Petitioner's mother. 3. The stand of the Petitioner is that subsequent to the demise of his father, a representation was preferred to the Fourth Respondent on completion of his '+2' standard. At the time of demise of his father, he was only six years old. In fact, the Second Respondent through letter dated 18.05.1999 forwarded a letter to the First Respondent stating that seven persons in the list deserve to be given employment on compassionate grounds. The letter bearing No.K26/2006/ (4605)/N2 dated 23.01.2006 was forwarded by the Fourth Respondent to the Third Respondent mentioning that based on the recommendation to appoint Seven Persons in letter dated 18.05.1999, the Petitioner also deserved to be considered on the same basis and his Certificates and particulars were forwarded to the concerned Authorities for verification. But, there was no response from the concerned Authorities. 4. The Petitioner was forced to submit a representation to the Hon'ble Chief Minister's Cell on 25.11.2010, for which a reply was received in Lr.No.4(1) 6018/2007 dated 3.01.2011 that orders are awaited from the Government. 5. The plea of the Petitioner is that his father expired before being brought into to regular establishment. The Legal Heirs of the persons who had expired prior to being brought into regular establishment were considered and 66 persons were given appointment on compassionate grounds in G.O.3(D) 149 Public Works (B3) Department dated 16.8.1994. 6. The Petitioner and similarly placed persons approached the Respondents seeking compassionate appointment. The file No.16003/B is reported to be pending with the First Respondent Office for so many years and it cannot be lost sight of that the Petitioner is awaiting for appointment for the past 15 years. 7. 6. The Petitioner and similarly placed persons approached the Respondents seeking compassionate appointment. The file No.16003/B is reported to be pending with the First Respondent Office for so many years and it cannot be lost sight of that the Petitioner is awaiting for appointment for the past 15 years. 7. Added further, it comes to be known that the Executive Engineer of PWD, Pudukottai in letter No.nfh.26/2006/ (4605)/ep 2/dated 23.11.2006 addressed to the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Water Resources Organisation, Trichirapalli, had inter alia stated that the petition/application of A.Srinivasan along with other documents were submitted for appropriate consideration. That apart, in letter No.4(1)/601/8/2007DATED 03.01.2011 issued by the Principal Chief Engineer and Chief Engineer, PWD, Chepauk, Chennai-5, addressed a communication to the Special Officer, The Chief Minister's Cell, Chennai-9, stating that the Government servant expired on 06.06.1975 and after a lapse of 31 years of death of Government Servant, the appointment on compassionate grounds was sought for on 17.11.2006 and further, the Government Servant service was not regularised and therefore, in regard to above, a proposal was sent to Government and order was expected. Further, as soon as the order is obtained from the Government, as per Government Rules, the appointment of compassionate grounds would be considered. 8. It is brought to the notice of this Court on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner filed O.A.No.7770 of 1998 against the Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Public Works Department, Chennai-9 and 3 Others and the Tribunal on 24.09.1998, had passed the following order: "Third Respondent is directed to consider the recommendation sent by the Fourth Respondent in his proceedings dated 24.12.97 (found at page 19 of the O.A.) and pass orders as per rules within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This application is ordered accordingly." 9. It is to be noted that one cannot claim an appointment based on compassionate ground as a matter of routine or as a matter of right. It is true that compassionate ground appointment is not a regular mode of appointment and it is only an exception to the regular mode of appointment. Ordinarily, the compassionate grounds appointment would be sought for in respect of 'C' and 'D' Grade posts. It is true that compassionate ground appointment is not a regular mode of appointment and it is only an exception to the regular mode of appointment. Ordinarily, the compassionate grounds appointment would be sought for in respect of 'C' and 'D' Grade posts. Whether the family has tied over the crisis, whether the Petitioner is eligible to claim appointment on compassionate grounds for any suitable posts, etc., are all matters to be gone into by the appropriate authorities concerned. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner cannot directly seek a Writ of Mandamus claiming a relief for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to appoint him on 'Compassionate Grounds'. 10. It is to be borne in mind that an employment in public service, as a rule, is to be made strictly based on open competition and merit. However, there is an exception to this rule that in order to meet the necessity of confirming to larger ideals of the State, some exceptions have been carved out. The object of the scheme of Compassionate Appointment is to grant an appointment on 'Compassionate Grounds' to a dependant family member of an employee dying in harness or who has retired on medical grounds thereby leaving his family in poverty without means of livelihood, to relieve the family of the concerned employee from financial destitution and to help it to get over the emergency. 11. Indeed, the 'Compassionate Ground' being an exception to the normal recruitment procedure, application of the scheme is to be applied strictly. At this juncture, this Court pertinently points out that in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA V. ASHA RAMACHANDRA AMBEKAR (MRS), AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT AT PAGE 2648, held that 'Courts or Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration'. 12. It is to be remembered that the scheme of compassionate appointment cannot be considered as conferring a right to a ward of an employee to defeat other persons right. In the instant case on hand, the Petitioner's file seeking compassionate appointment is pending with the First Respondent for a very long period without yielding any result. 12. It is to be remembered that the scheme of compassionate appointment cannot be considered as conferring a right to a ward of an employee to defeat other persons right. In the instant case on hand, the Petitioner's file seeking compassionate appointment is pending with the First Respondent for a very long period without yielding any result. It is always open to the First Respondent to pass appropriate orders in regard to pending file of the First Respondent based on rules and regulations that are in force from time to time, in the considered opinion of this Court. Also that law is an embodiment of all wisdom. A Court of law is to administer law as they find it, however, inconvenient it may be. 13. This Court worth recalls and recollects the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ANDHRAPRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER V. DANNINA RAJESWARI, 1999 SUBREME COURT CASES [LABOUR AND SERVICE] AT PAGE 1182, wherein it is observed that 'Compassionate Appointment can be directed to be given only in a clear vacancy'. 14. As far as the present case is concerned, in view of the fact that the file of the Petitioner is pending with the First Respondent for such a long period [pertaining to his claim for appointment based on compassionate appointment] and even though, his father had expired on 06.06.1975, he had staked his claim for the compassionate grounds appointment only on 17.11.2006 [after a lapse of 31 years]. As such, this Court, to secure the ends of justice and to promote substantial cause of justice and further, this Court without delving deep into the merits and demerits of the case and also not traversing upon the subject matter in issue any further, in the interest of Justice, Fair Play, Equity, Good Conscience, directs the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner based on his representation addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister Cell on 25.11.2010 [for which, till date the orders are not passed by the Government] from humanitarian and sympathetic points of view, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 15. With the above said observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.