Like Fulfilling Unwritten Will Of Deceased Govt Servant: Madras HC Says Granting Compassionate Employment Should Be Rule, Denying It An Exception

Justice RN Manjula observed that providing compassionate appointment was like fulfilling the unwritten will of the deceased government servant, and required an understanding of how the deceased employee would have wished his dependents to settle in life if he was alive. The court, thus, noted that the authorities needed to consider the applications with both sympathy and empathy.

“The matters of compassion not only requires an understanding by getting into the shoes of the applicant but also in the shoes of the deceased government servant, like how the deceased would have wished to settle his dependents in life, if he was alive. So providing compassionate appointment is more or like fulfilling an unwritten Will of the deceased government servant. Hence in the matters of compassionate appointment granting the appointment can be the rule and denying it may be an exception,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a plea seeking to declare certain paras in the Bank's circular as unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary and unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The concerned para excluded a married daughter from the definition of “dependent family member/wholly dependent daughter” for getting a compassionate appointment. The plea also challenged the bank's decision to reject the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on the ground that she was married at the time of her father's death.

The bank submitted that though the married daughter was entitled to compassionate appointment, she had to be wholly dependent on her father. It was submitted that when the deceased government servant had previously applied for Leave Travel Concession, the petitioner's name was not included. It was also pointed out that the petitioner was working as a Nurse in a private hospital but had left the job on her own and thus she was not wholly dependent on the income of her father.

Rejecting this submission, the court pointed out that an application for leave travel concession could not be the basis for rejecting the married daughter's application for a compassionate appointment.

The court further pointed out that while married daughters had crossed the first challenge of coming under the ambit of the compassionate scheme, they continued to face challenges and were expected to prove that they were depending on the income of the father. The court added that while married sons found it easier to continue living in the family home when married daughters chose to live in their parents' house, it raised eyebrows and was considered unusual.

The court further observed that even when a married woman was dependent on her parents for various reasons, it was preferably not revealed either of the daughter's own volition or because it was considered below the dignity of the husband's family.

Thus, the court remarked that married daughters could not be forced to produce records to show that they were fully or partially dependent on the father's income. The court highlighted that such matters had to be dealt with with an empathetic approach and not a pedantic approach attached to routine filed and formalities.

The court thus quashed the order of the authorities rejecting the petitioner's request for a compassionate appointment and directed them to reconsider her application.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.V.Ajoy Khose

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.S.Raghunathan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 96

Case Title: M Priya v Canara Bank

Case No: W.P.No.3623 of 2021