Efflux Of Time Valid Ground To Reject Claim For Compassionate Appointment: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has observed that a compassionate appointment cannot not be claimed as a matter of right, and only if a person is entitled under the terms and conditions so specified, can the scheme be extended. The court observed that a compassionate appointment is not a regular appointment as no selection is conducted, no suitability or eligibility is tested but the appointment is under exceptional circumstances i.e, the death of an employee. 

Justice S.M Subramaniam observed as under:

"Compassionate appointment is to be restricted in the interest of the efficient public administration. No doubt, the Government has also restricted the compassionate appointments and it is to be extended only to the deserving family and more so, after a lapse of many years. Providing compassionate appointment after a lapse of many years would not only defeat the purpose and object of the scheme, but also the penurious circumstances arose on account of the sudden death became vanished. Thus, the lapse of time is also a ground to reject the claim for compassionate appointment."

In the present case, the mother of the petitioner who was working as a Junior Assistant in the Office of the Commissioner of Police died on 14.04.1995. Thereafter, the family submitted an application seeking an appointment on compassionate grounds. This application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner's father was employed during that time and hence, the family was not in indigent circumstances. The court also noted that the application was filed on 17.03.2004, i.e. after a period of three years from the date of death of the deceased. "Now after a lapse of about 27 years, the benefit of the Scheme could not be extended in favour of the petitioner", the court noted.

The court discussed in detail the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Premlata wherein the court discussed in detail the scheme of compassionate appointment. Premlata's judgment also discussed other precedents wherein the court had clearly laid down on what conditions compassionate appointment could be granted. In N.C.Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka, the Apex Court summarized the principles governing the grant of compassionate appointment as under:

1. That the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule;

2. That no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment;

3. The appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;

4. Appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State's policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;

5. The norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment

Thus, the court had concluded that a compassionate appointment was a concession and not a right. The object of providing such employment was to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis.

In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, the Apex Court also clarified that compassionate appointments can be offered only for posts in Classes III and IV which were the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories. The court had also noted that providing such employment was not discriminatory. It observed as under:

"The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution."

Similar Read: Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Accept Claim For Compassionate Appointment Citing Delay Of 17 Years

Similar Read: Compassionate Appointment Intended To Provide "Urgent Relief" To Bereaved Family: Gujarat High Court Refuses To Grant Benefit After 5 Yrs Of Death

Case Title: B.Ramprakash v. The Government of Tamil Nadu 

Case No: WP No.23331 of 2014

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 293

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.Balan Haridass

Counsel for Respondent: Ms.S.Anitha, Special Government Pleader

 Click here to read/download the judgment