Local Administration Department & Anr vs M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu

the Madras High Court. By the judgment and order

coming under appeal, the High Court directed the

appellants to provide appointment to the respondent

under the scheme of "compassionate appointments"

for the death of his father while he was in

service. The High Court further asked the

2

appellants to comply with the direction within

three months from the date of the order.

2. The respondent's father Meenakshisundaram

worked as a Watchman in Karaikal Municipality. He

died on November 22, 1988, after putting in 4 years

3 months and 25 days of service. He left behind a

widowed wife and two sons, including the respondent

who was 11 years old at that time. The wife of the

deceased, whose age at the time of the death of her

husband was 39 years, did not make any request for

her appointment on compassionate grounds.

3. After about five and a half years of his

father's death, the respondent passed the S.S.L.C.

examination in April, 1993. And then, for the first

time on July, 29, 1993, the respondent's mother

made an application for his appointment on

compassionate grounds. No action was possible on

this application since the respondent was still a

minor. Later on, another application was made for

his appointment on compassionate grounds after 7

3

years and 6 months of the death of his father.

Failing to get a favourable response to his

application, he filed a Writ Petition before the

High Court seeking appropriate directions to the

concerned authorities. That Writ Petition was

disposed of by a single Judge of the High Court

with a direction to the authorities to consider his

claim for appointment on compassionate grounds

afresh and pass an order on his application within

four months from the date of receipt of that order.

This order (first in the series) passed by the High

Court was followed by a contempt proceeding

initiated against the authorities at the instance

of the respondent but that is not relevant for the

present and we need not go into that any further.

Suffice to note that eventually, the Municipality

rejected the respondent's claim for compassionate

appointment vide order dated 19.4.2000. He once

again went to the High Court. A single Judge of the

High Court, this time, rejected the Writ Petition.

4 Against the order passed by the single Judge, he

filed an intra-court appeal which was allowed by

judgment and order dated April 30, 2004, and the

Municipality was given the direction to appoint the

respondent within three months from the date of the

order.

4. The appellants have now brought this matter to

this Court.

5. In the order dated April 19, 2000, two reasons

were assigned for rejecting the respondent's claim

for appointment on compassionate basis. First, on

the death of Meenakshisundaram, his wife, the

mother of the respondent did not make any request

for appointment and this showed that the demise of

the concerned employee had not caused a very

serious financial crisis in the family. In this

connection it was also stated that in case on the

death of Meenakshisundaram, his wife had made a

request for appointment on compassionate grounds,

her application might have been considered giving

5

her relaxation of age and academic qualification.

The second reason given for rejecting the

respondent's claim was that following the death of

Meenakshisundaram, the family was given Rs.26,674/-

as terminal benefits besides family pension to the

widow. Thus, the dependents of the deceased

employee were not left completely without any

financial resources.

6. The second reason given for not accepting the

respondent's claim was rejected outright by the

Division Bench relying upon a decision of this

Court in Balbir Kaur and another Versus Steel

Authority of India Ltd. and others, AIR 2000 SC

1596. And on this score, the decision of the High

Court cannot be faulted. But the Division Bench

also disapproved the first reason assigned for

rejecting the respondent's claim. It accepted the

respondent's explanation for her mother not

applying for a job on the death of his father and

held that could not be a ground for denying

6

appointment to him on compassionate basis. In this

connection, the Division bench said:

"So far as the first reasoning is

concerned, at the time of death of father

of the petitioner, the petitioner was just

11 years old. In the S.S.L.C., examination

conducted in April, 1993, he came out

successfully and made an application on

12-7-1993 for compassionate appointment.

Thereafter, number of representations were

sent to the Karaikal Municipality and this

Court finds in one such representation

dated 13-9-1996 (as found in the file

produced by the Municipality), it has been

stated as under,

"My mother could not

immediately seek for self-

employment, as she was suffering

from anaemia and hypo tension.

Though my family was really in

harness (sic distress), my mother

managed to maintain the family

with the help of her pension

amount and that of her earnings

from attending menial works from

house to house."

This claim was made in fact three

years prior to the filing of the first

writ petition. In the affidavit filed in

support of the present writ petition also

in paragraph 2, a specific mention about

this has been made. If that is so,

obviously that was the reason as to why

she did not apply for the job immediately

after the death of her husband in the

municipality, that is, due to bad health.

7 In these circumstances, this Court does

not find any substance in the first

reasoning as well that the failure on the

part of the mother of the appellant to

apply immediately for appointment relaxing

the relevant rules would show that the

family was not in difficulties."

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

8

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 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

9

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

10

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.

10. In light of the discussions made above, we find

the impugned order of the Division Bench of the

Madras High Court unsustainable in law. It is set

aside and the appeal is allowed but with no order

as to costs.

.........................................................J.

(Aftab Alam)

.........................................................J.

(R.M. Lodha)

New Delhi;

April 5, 2011.