Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 58 (MAD)

L. Preetha v. Director General of Police

2019-01-03

K.K.SASIDHARAN, P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

body2019
JUDGMENT : P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J. 1. The father of the Appellant, viz., Lingasamy, who was employed as Superintendent in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar, died in harness on 26.05.2008, leaving his wife, mother, son and daughter. The application for compassionate appointment made on 03.12.2008 by Praveenraj, son of the deceased, was accepted and he was given appointment as Grade-II Police Constable and he reported for duty on 31.01.2011 and underwent physical training till 20.02.2011. However, as he had some difficulty in walking due to a leg injury sustained during his school days, he had resigned the job on 21.02.2011, which was accepted. Thereafter the wife of the said deceased Lingasamy made an application dated 22.06.2011 for compassionate appointment, it was rejected on the ground that it was made beyond the period of three years from the date of death of the deceased employee. The Appellant, who is the daughter of deceased Lingasamy, then made an application on 06.06.2018 for compassionate appointment and as no orders were passed on the same, she filed W.P. (MD) No. 17984 of 2018 seeking a direction to consider and pass orders for her appointment on compassionate grounds. According to the Appellant, she was married on 18.03.2012 and her husband had deserted her shortly after marriage, leaving behind a female child apart from her mother. It is further stated that her brother had also got married and he is living separately. 2. The Learned Judge who heard the Writ Petition, after referring to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relating to compassionate appointment in the decision in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar -vs- Union of India [ (2011) 4 SCC 209 ], and the decision in L. Mohanasundaram -vs- Joint Director of School Education (order dated 06.02.2018 in W.P. (MD) No. 16402 of 2012), held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the concerned person has to apply for the same with reasonable time and finding that there was no merits in the Writ Petition, dismissed the same by order dated 14.08.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant has preferred this intra-court appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. G.R. Satish, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. D. Muruganantham, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant has preferred this intra-court appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. G.R. Satish, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. D. Muruganantham, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 4. It is strenuously urged by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that taking into account the dire need of sustenance for the Appellant and her family from the facts narrated supra, this Court ought to direct the concerned authority to consider her representation for compassionate appointment on merits despite the fact that three years have lapsed from the date of death of her father. 5. In this context, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Umesh Kumar Nagpal -vs- State of Haryana [ (1994) 4 SCC 138 ], wherein it has been held as follows:- “2. The question relates to the considerations which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of application and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union Bank of India -vs- M.T. Latheesh [ (2006) 7 SCC 350 ] has cautioned that indiscriminate grant of employment on compassionate grounds would shut the door for employment to the ever-growing population of unemployed youth. In State Bank of India -vs- Somvir Singh [ (2007)4 SCC 778 ], it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as follows:- “Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Article 16(2) protects citizens against discrimination in respect of any employment or office under the State on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex and descent. Article 16(2) protects citizens against discrimination in respect of any employment or office under the State on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex and descent. It is so well settled and needs no restatement at our end that appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception carved out to the general rule that recruitment to public services is to be made in a transparent and accountable manner providing opportunity to all eligible persons to compete and participate in the selection process. Such appointments are required to be made on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. Dependants of employees died in harness do not have any special or additional claim to public services other than the one conferred, if any, by the employer.” 6. After referring to earlier decisions, the legal position has been succinctly reiterated in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar -vs- Union of India [ (2011) 4 SCC 209 ], referred to in the impugned judgment, as follows:- “Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind:- (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be. (iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/incapacitated employee, viz., parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts. 7. (iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/incapacitated employee, viz., parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts. 7. On a conspectus of the dictum in the binding decisions referred supra, it would necessarily follow that if any direction is issued for considering the claim for compassionate appointment as sought on the ground of financial hardship, despite the lapse of time fixed under the scheme, it would unwittingly amount to unduly favouring persons like the Appellant to the detriment of other citizens whose gravity of suffering is comparatively of higher magnitude, which cannot be countenanced. 8. Viewed from this perspective, we are of the considered view that the Learned Judge was absolutely justified in rejecting the claim made by the Appellant in the Writ Petition, and we confirm the same. 9. In the upshot, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.