IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 30-07-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.27737 of 2006 O.A.No.5266 of 1996 K.Jayalakshmi .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Government of Tamilnadu rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Madras-9. 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Madras-6. 3.The Chief Educational Officer, Tiruchi. .. Respondents. Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, to appoint the applicant herein on compassionate ground as Watchman- cum-Waterman in the Education Department in Tiruchi District or Salem District. For Petitioner : Mrs. Muthumani Doraisami For Respondents : Mr.T.Seenivasan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated by the petitioner that her father Krishna Muthu Raja had died in harness, on 29.11.90, while he was working as a Watchman-cum-Waterman in Government Girls High School, Pugalur, Trichy, leaving behind his wife Malaiammal, Son K.Subramanian and his daughter K.Jayalakshmi, who is the petitioner in the present writ petition. Since no member of her family is working and as her family https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has no source of income, she had made several representations requesting that she may be appointed on compassionate grounds. Since there was a ban in respect of appointment on compassionate grounds, the petitioner had not been appointed. However, the State Government, had not considered the request of the petitioner. Since the ban had been lifted, recently, the petitioner had filed an original application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.5266 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and re- numbered as W.P.No.27737 of 2006. 3. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that Krishna Muthu Raja was working as a Watchman- cum-Waterman in Government Girls High School, Pugalur. He had died on 29.11.90, while in service. Krishna Muthu Raja had left behind his wife and two children. His daughter K.Jayalakshmi, who is the petitioner herein, was already married and having four children. Malaiammal, the widow of Krishna Muthu Raja was sanctioned a sum of Rs.10,000/- as family benefit fund, which was paid on 10.2.81. She was also admitted for a family pension of Rs.366/-, by the Accountant General, Chennai. It has also been stated that the Tamilnadu Government had introduced a scheme in G.O.Ms.No.560, Labour and Employment, dated 3.8.77, to provide appointment on compassionate grounds to the legal heir of the family of the government servant who had died in harness, leaving the family in indigent circumstances. According to paragraph-2 of the Government order, the expression `near relative', had included only the wife/husband/son/unmarried daughter. A married daughter living with her husband has not been contemplated as a family member of the deceased government servant since she belongs to a separate family. The petitioner had been informed through the Headmaster, Government Girls High School, Pugalur, in L.Dis.No.4742/A1/90, dated 22.1.91, that she is not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds on account of the death of her father Krishna Muthu Raja, since she was already married. In such circumstances, there is no merit or substance in the claims made by the petitioner. 4. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available before this Court, it is clear that the petitioner cannot make a valid claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, based on G.O.Ms.No.560, Labour and Employment, dated 3.8.77, as it defines a `near relative' as wife/husband/son/unmarried daughter of a government servant, who had died in harness. Since the petitioner had been married at the time of the death of her father, Krishna Muthu Raja, she was not considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is seen that the widow of Krishna Muthu Raja had been sanctioned a sum of Rs.10,000/- as family benefit fund, which was paid to her on 10.2.81. She was also admitted for a family pension of Rs.366/-, by the Accountant General, Chennai, for her livelihood. It is also seen that the petitioner was aged 44 years in the year 1996 when she had filed the original application in O.A.No.5266 of 1996, before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal. At present, she would be aged about 56 years, close to attaining the age of superannuation. Further, the father of the petitioner is said to have died in the year 1990, while the original application had been filed by the petitioner before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in the year 1996. Even though, it has been stated that the petitioner has been making several representations and that there was a ban on recruitment by the State Government, it cannot be said that there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Tribunal or the Courts of law to establish her claims. 6. The following are some of the recent decisions relating to appointment on compassionate grounds: 6.1. In State Bank of India and another Vs. Somvir Singh (2007 (4) SCC 778), the Supreme Court had held 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 who had died in harness do not have any special or additional claim to public services other than the one conferred, if any, by the employer. The claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules, etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds. There is no right of whatsoever nature to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than the one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of a scheme or instructions, as the case may be. 6.2. In I.G.(Karmik) and others Vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi (2007(6) SCC 162), the Supreme Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ had held that compassionate appointment must be in consonance with the Constitutional scheme of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6.3. In Union Bank of India and others Vs. M.T.Latheesh (2006(7) SCC 350), the Supreme Court had held that grant of employment on compassionate grounds in all cases, would shut the door for employment to the increasing number of unemployed youth. 6.4. In Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coal Field Ltd., and others (2007(8) SCC 549), the Supreme Court had recognised the fact that appointment on compassionate grounds are an exception to Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. 6.5. In State Bank of India and others Vs. Jaspal Kaur (2007(9) SCC 571), the Supreme Court had held that a major criterion while appointing a person on compassionate grounds should be the financial condition of the family of the deceased person. The appointment under the scheme of compassionate appointment is at the discretion of the authority concerned. The discretion is to be exercised keeping in view the scheme and the object and the rationale behind it. However, it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 6.6. In Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad and others Vs. Sarvarunnisa Begum (2008 (3) SCC 402) the Supreme Court, 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 again held that compassionate appointments would be given to the dependants of the deceased who had died in harness, to get over the difficulties on the death of the bread earner and that it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 6.7. "In H.Anwar Basha Vs. The Registrar General, Madras High Court (2008 (3) CTC 785), a Division Bench of this Court had held that the object of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the sufferings of the bereaved family of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government servant who had died in harness leaving his family in indigent circumstances. 7. From the various decisions of the Courts of law, it is clear that compassionate appointments cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Such appointments are made to provide succour to the family of the government servant, who had died in harness, if such family is found to be in indigent circumstances. However, such appointments are to be made only in accordance with the Rules, Schemes and the Government Orders applicable to such appointments. 8. In such circumstances, there is no substance or merit in the present writ petition filed by the petitioner claiming appointment on compassionate grounds. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar csh To 1. The Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu Education Department, Madras-9. 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Madras-6. 3.The Chief Educational Officer, Tiruchi. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.41580 Writ Petition No.27737 of 2006 VS(CO) SMK/27.8.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/