IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:28.08.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN W.P.No.7709 of 2004 and W.V.M.P.No.1808 of 2005 G.Manikandan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Union of India represented by The Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Union Territory of Pondicherry, Pondicherry. 2.The Joint Secretary (Revenue), Pondicherry. 3.The Deputy Collector (Revenue), Pondicherry. 4.The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, represented by its Registrar, Chennai. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the fourth respondent relating to the impugned order in O.A.No.131 of 2003 dated 17.10.2003 and quash the same and consequently, allow the O.A.No.131 of 2003. For Petitioners : Mr.Sai Bharath and Ilan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Respondents : Mr.Syed Mustafa, Addl. Govt. Pleader (Pondicherry) for R1 & R3 O R D E R M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J The petitioner's father was working as a Village Assistant in the Revenue Department under the third respondent and he died in harness on 27.05.1999. The petitioner's father left behind his wife aged about 43 years, unmarried daughter aged about 23 years, the petitioner aged about 21 years and the son aged about 17 years who was also unemployed and also the unmarried daughter who married subsequently. 2. The petitioner had passed the Higher Secondary Examination and also Typewriting (lower) and according to him, he is eligible for appointment in Group C and D Posts of the Union Territory of Pondicherry. 3. The petitioner submitted an application dated 01.03.2000 praying for appointment on compassionate ground and the second respondent vide communication dated 18.10.2000, has informed him that his case was placed in the meeting of the committee for compassionate ground appointment on 29.09.2000 for consideration and the committee has not recommended his case for consideration. The mother of the petitioner has also submitted a representation stating that the pension amount Rs.2,000/- given to her is not enough for maintaining his family consisting of two sons and three daughters and therefore, a job may be given to her son, the petitioner herein. The mother of the petitioner had also submitted a reminder on 15.03.2000. However, there was no response and hence, the petitioner had filed an application in O.A.No.131 of 2003 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') challenging the order of rejection of his request for appointment under compassionate ground, passed on 18.10.2000. 4. The respondents in the said O.A, had filed their counter. In the counter, it has been stated that after the demise of the petitioner's father, a sum of Rs.1,16,160/- was paid by way of DCRG, apart from a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards insurance and a sum https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of Rs.39,142/- towards encashment of leave. It is further stated by the respondents therein that as per G.O.Ms.No.32/GC/UII/dated 23.07.1999, the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (PW), Pondicherry, has formed a Committee to consider the applications for compassionate ground appointment. The said Committee met on 29.09.2000 and considered four cases including the case of the petitioner. The Committee has not recommended the case of the petitioner on the ground that the quota earmarked for compassionate appointment had already been exhausted and it selected only one candidate who is an invalid pensioner, in view of her indigent condition. It is further stated by the respondents in their counter that as per the scheme formulated, compassionate appointment can be upto a maximum of 5% of the vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in any Group C or D post and since the quota has already been exhausted, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered. 5. The Tribunal on a consideration of averments made in the application and the counter, has held that there is no scope for keeping any waiting list of selected candidates for future appointment and that the compassionate ground appointment is required to be given immediately to tide over the difficult economic situation which had befallen on the family of the deceased and it will hardly serve any purpose if after such selected candidate is put on the waiting list for appointment on future date which is not definite. The Tribunal for the said reasons recorded by it, has dismissed the Original Application. 6. The petitioner who is the applicant in the said O.A, aggrieved by the dismissal of the same, has preferred this writ petition. 7. Mr.Bharatha Chackravarthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application for the petitioner for compassionate ground appointment has not been considered on merits. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that even assuming that vacancy is not available in a particular department, the case of the petitioner can be considered and he could have been accommodated in other Departments. 8. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Committee after considering the claim of the candidate for compassionate ground appointment, has not properly applied its mind and erroneously rejected the application of the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. Per contra, Mr.Syed Mustafa, learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry), for the respondents 1 and 2, has submitted that the Committee constituted for considering the application for compassionate ground appointment has considered the case of the applicant also along with other candidates and selected a candidate who is an invalid pensioner. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the mother of the petitioner earns a family pension of Rs.2,292/- p.m and also received a sum of Rs.1,70,302/- for the demise of her husband and the family also possesses own terraced building. Hence, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate ground appointment has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal and no interference is warranted in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 and also perused the materials on record. 11. The Honourable Supreme Court of India in catena of decisions, had held that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment, but merely an exception to the requirement regarding appointments being made on open invitation of application on merits. The basic intention behind the scheme of appointment on compassionate ground is that on the death of the employee concerned, his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. 12. The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar and another reported in 1994 IL Sc 1383, has pointed out that the High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do no cover and contemplate such appointments. In the another decision in Sushma Gosain and others v. Union of India and others reported in 1989 IL 207 (SC) has held that in all claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13. Therefore, the principles laid down in those decisions would indicate that out of purely humanitarian and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet. Therefore, provisions are made for giving appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that provision for ground of compassionate employment which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions does not unduly interfere with the right of those other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek appointment against the post which would have been available, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependant of the deceased employee. This Court keeping the principles laid down in those decisions, has analyzed the case of the petitioner. 14. On the demise of the petitioner's father, the family was provided with a sum of Rs.1,70,302/- consisting of DCRG, Insurance and Encashment of leave. The mother of the petitioner has also provided with the family pension of Rs.2,292/- p.m and the family also holds a terraced building. 15. The Committee constituted for considering the application for compassionate ground appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.32/GC/UII/dated 23.07.1999, the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (PW), Pondicherry, has considered the case of the applicants seeking appointments on compassionate ground including the petitioner. 16. On consideration of the same, the Committee found that the daughter of the deceased employee namely Selvi.Shajathy, who is earning an invalid pension of Rs.435/- p.m who is eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. The Committee also found that the post available for direct recruitment in the Group C and D Posts in the year 2000, were at 40 posts and only two posts, being 5% of the same, were recommended to be filled up under the compassionate appointment as per the decision taken in the meeting of the committee held on 19.05.2000. The Committee on consideration of the applications, had selected above said person who is an invalid pensioner and taking into consideration of his indigent condition. 17. Since the said Committee had discharged its functions in terms of the said G.O under which it came to be constituted and the procedure adopted by the said Committee was also fair and proper, We found that the claim of the petitioner is unsustainable. The petitioner's father died on 27.05.1999 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground came to be rejected on 18.10.2000 and for these years, the petitioner is able to survive. 18. As per various decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court of India, the object of compassionate ground appointment is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. Admittedly, the mother of the petitioner is in receipt of the family pension and they also received lumpsum amount of Rs.1,70,302/- by way of DCRG and other benefits. The Tribunal also found that providing compassionate ground appointment is only a welfare measure and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right and there is no need to give any waiting list for compassionate ground appointment and it should be done as early as possible in utmost indigent circumstances. 19. In view of the above said reasons, We found that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 20. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed and the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.131 of 2003 is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. rsb To 1.The Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Union Territory of Pondicherry, Pondicherry. 2.The Joint Secretary (Revenue), Pondicherry. 3.The Deputy Collector (Revenue), Pondicherry. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, represented by its Registrar, Chennai. 1 cc to M/s. Sai Bharath and Ilan, Advocate, SR. 49002 1 cc to Senior Government Pleader, Pondicherry, SR. 48781 W.P.No.7709 of 2004 and W.V.M.P.No.1808 of 2005 RSM (CO) kk 6/9 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/