IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-01-2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.12209 of 2006 N.Raja .. Petitioner. Versus 1.Chief Engineer, Head Quarters, Military Engineering Service, Chennai Zone, Island Grounds, Chennai-600 009. 2.Commander works Engineer, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-600 002. .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent, made in No.10246/GEN/5252/E1A, dated 13.3.2006, and quash the said order, dated 13.3.2006, and direct the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner, on compassionate ground. For petitioner : Mr.S.Ayyathurai For Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran (ASG) O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has stated that his father, S.Nagan, who was working as a Mazdoor, under the Garrison Engineer, Fort St. George, Chennai, had died, on 19.12.2001, while in service. After the death of his father, the petitioner had approached the Garrison Engineer for appointment on compassionate ground. However, the request of the petitioner had been turned down on the ground that he had not completed 18 years of age. Thereafter, on his completion of 18 years of age, the petitioner had renewed his request for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner had received a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ letter from the Garrison Engineer, dated 8.3.2004, stating that his name has been registered and that he would be considered for appointment as and when vacancies arose. However, a letter, dated 31.12.2004, had been received by the petitioner, rejecting his request. 3. It has been further stated that the petitioner had, once again, approached the Garrison Engineer, along with his mother, to request him to give appointment. However, the request of the petitioner had been rejected by the impugned order, dated 13.3.2006. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 13.3.2006, is vitiated due to the failure of the said respondent to take into account the fact that the petitioner was fully qualified to be appointed on compassionate ground. The petitioner belongs to a scheduled tribe and he has been living in indigent circumstances. He has no landed property and none of his family members is in employment. He had also submitted that the first respondent had passed the impugned order, without the application of mind and without showing proper reasons to reject the request of the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 5.1. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal V. State of Haryana (1994-II L.L.N. 420), it has been held as follows: "The whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family of deceased Government servant 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.xxxxxx 5. It is obvious from the above observations that the High Court endorses the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ policy of the State Government to make compassionate appointment in posts equivalent to the posts held by the deceased-employees and above Classes III and IV. It is unnecessary to reiterate that these observations are contrary to law. If the dependant of the deceased employee finds it below his dignity to accept the post offered, he is free not to do so. The post is not offered to cater to his status but to see the family through the economic calamity. 6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over." 5.2. In Balbir Kaur V. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2000(3) L.L.N.55), it has been held that the benefit of compassionate appointment cannot be denied because of the introduction of the family benefit scheme, which was meant to provide an assured regular income per month to the disabled employee. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the writ petition is not maintainable, either on law, or on facts. The petitioner ought to have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal instead of approaching this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, the petitioner cannot claim any right of appointment on compassionate ground. The respondents are bound to follow the guidelines issued by the Government of India in making such appointments. The appointments are made based on the merit of the candidates, as stipulated in the Ministry of Defence letter No.19(4)/824-99/1998-D (Lab), dated 9.3.2001, taking into consideration the size of the family, the age of the children, the amount of terminal benefits received, the amount of family pension being paid, liability in terms of unmarried daughters, minor children, movable and immovable properties left behind by the deceased person, the financial status of the family and other such factors. Since, there were more deserving candidates the petitioner could not be given the appointment on compassionate ground. 7. It has been further stated that the mother of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner is receiving a monthly pension of Rs.1585/-. The property of the petitioner is worth about Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner and his elder sister are possessing sufficient educational qualifications for getting employment, elsewhere. Further, the policy of reservation is not followed in compassionate appointments. In such circumstances, the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground had to be rejected. 8. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to set aside the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 13.3.2006. Since, the petitioner cannot claim any right of appointment on compassionate ground, it is or the authorities concerned to consider the various factors necessary for such appointment, as per the guidelines provided by the various orders issued by the State and Central Governments and the decisions of the Courts of law. 9. Since it has been stated that there were other candidates, who were more qualified for being appointed on compassionate ground, the petitioner’s request could not be considered. Further, the petitioner’s mother has been receiving a family pension of Rs.1585/- per month and the petitioner had properties worth Rs.50,000/-. It is also clear that appointment on compassionate ground can only be made if the family of the deceased is in indigent circumstances, at the time of the death of the said employee. 10. In view of the various decisions of the Courts of law, it is clear an appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed, as a matter of right and that it is an exception to the regular rules of recruitment. The views expressed by the Courts of law could be of relevance in deciding the present case. The following are some of the recent decisions relating to appointment on compassionate ground: 10.1. 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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. 10.2. In I.G.(Karmik) and others Vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi (2007(6) SCC 162), the Supreme Court 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. 10.3. 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. 10.4. 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. 10.5. 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. 10.6. In Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad and others https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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. 10.7. "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 Government servant who had died in harness leaving his family in indigent circumstances. 11. From the above decisions, it is clear that compassionate appointments are made in order to help the family in distress, due to the sudden death of its bread winner. However, such appointments are not to be made, as a matter of course, without verification of the relevant circumstances existing in the family of the deceased employee. Nor can it be made, without following the rules and regulations applicable to such employment. Further, employment on the compassionate ground cannot be claimed, as a matter of right, since such appointments are an exception to the usual procedures followed in making regular appointments. Accordingly, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To: 1.Chief Engineer, Head Quarters, Military Engineering Service, Chennai Zone, Island Grounds, Chennai-600 009. 2.Commander works Engineer, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-600 002. +1cc to Mr.J.Ravidran, Advocate Sr 3634 +1cc to Mr.S.Ayyathurai, Advocate Sr 3193 SAI(CO) km/5.2. W.P.No.12209 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/