1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:12.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU WP(MD)No.646 of 2011 P.Muthukumar :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai. 2.The Superintendent Engineer, Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle, TNEB, Virudhunagar. :Respondents This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide its proceedings in Ka.No.14901/Nb2/o2/07, dated 26.06.2007 and quash the same and direct the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground and to grant such further relief as this Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Kasirajan For Respondents: M/s.A.V.Ramanathan ORDER The petitioner has come forward to challenge the order dated 26.06.2007 rejecting her mother's request for grant of compassionate appointment on account of the death of his father late M.Pandi on 20.03.2004 on the ground that the petitioner was not qualified at the time of the application was considered and he was also not completed 18 years of age and not fit for employment in the service of the Electricity Board. The petitioner did not choose to challenge the above-said communication sent to the mother of the petitioner, but made representation on his behalf. 2.Admittedly on the date of the death of his father, he was only 15 years and his date of birth as reflected in the School Transfer Certificate shows that he was born on 15.05.1989 and therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the respondent. He did not challenge the said communication, but subsequently after he became major, he sent a representation stating that his request can now be considered as he obtained majority. It must be noted that seeking for compassionate appointment is an exception to Articles 14 and 16 and it is has to be strictly construed. 3.The writ petition is liable to be rejected both on the grounds of delay as well as on merits of the case. In this context, it is necessary to refer two judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court. 4.The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs Union of India and others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 209 had observed in paragraphs 15 and 20 as follows: "15.Now, it is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the employee's family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our Constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible. Nevertheless, the concept of compassionate appointment has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 been recognized as an exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which partakes the character of the service rules. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy,as the case may be,is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve. 20.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 bread winner 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. 5.Further, the Supreme Court in Local Administration Department and another Vs. M.Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu reported in (2011) 5 MLJ 892 (SC) in paragraphs 7 to 9 had observed as follows: "7.We think that the explanation given for the wife of the deceased not asking for employment is an after-thought and completely unacceptable. A person suffering from anaemia and low blood pressure will always greatly prefer the security and certainty of a regular job in the municipality which would be far more lucrative and far less taxing than doing menial work from house to house in an unorganised way. But, apart from this, there is a far more basic flaw in the view taken by the Division Bench in that it is completely divorced from the object and purpose of the scheme of compassionate appointments. It has been said a number of times earlier but it needs to be recalled here that under the scheme of compassionate appointment, in case of an employee dying in harness one of his eligible dependents is given a job with the sole objective to provide immediate succour to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the bread winner. An appointment made many https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind. 8.Ideally, the appointment on compassionate basis should be made without any loss of time but having regard to the delays in the administrative process and several other relevant factors such as the number of already pending claims under the scheme and availability of vacancies etc. normally the appointment may come after several months or even after two to three years. It is not our intent, nor it is possible to lay down a rigid time limit within which appointment on compassionate grounds must be made but what needs to be emphasised is that such an appointment must have some bearing on the object of the scheme. 9. In this case the respondent was only 11 years old at the time of the death of his father. The first application for his appointment was made on July 2, 1993, even while he was a minor. Another application was made on his behalf on attaining majority after 7 years and 6 months of his father's death. In such a case, the appointment cannot be said to sub-serve the basic object and purpose of the scheme. It would rather appear that on attaining majority he staked his claim on the basis that his father was an employee of the Municipality and he had died while in service. In the facts of the case, the municipal authorities were clearly right in holding that with whatever difficulty, the family of Meenakshisundaram had been able to tide over the first impact of his death. That being the position, the case of the respondent did not come under the scheme of compassionate appointments." 6.In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To:1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai. 2.The Superintendent Engineer, Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle, TNEB, Virudhunagar. +1CC to Mr.C.Kasirajan, Advocate. SR.No.35335. +1CC to Mr.A.V.Ramanathan, Advocate. SR.No.35397. RP/03.11.2011/3P/5C. Order made in W.P.(MD)No.646 of 2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/