Purpose Of Compassionate Appointment Is To Reduce Immediate Financial Hardship Faced By Employees' Family Upon Their Death: Madras High Court

Background Facts

The father of S. Radhakannan (Second Respondent) was originally appointed as a casual daily laborer on daily wages in the State Forest Service College, Coimbatore. Despite efforts to regularize his service, he passed away in 1996 before the completion of the regularization process. Following his death, his wife sought compassionate appointment for their family. The wife of the deceased employee made a representation to the Principal State Forest Service College, Coimbatore, seeking for compassionate appointment, which was recommended by the said authority. But the representation was rejected by the Government (Petitioner) holding that the deceased was not eligible to be regularised on the ground that he was not a regular employee and did not possessed the prescribed qualification. This order came to be challenged by the wife of the deceased, where the Central Administrative Tribunal (First Respondent) set aside the order and directed the petitioner to reconsider the case of the deceased employee for regularisation.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition.

The petitioner argued that the deceased employee passed away in 1996, and after 22 years, it cannot be said that the family continued to be in extremely poor circumstances, which is the primary purpose of compassionate appointment. The petitioners emphasized that the deceased employee was not a regular government employee but was working as a casual daily laborer. They argued that the scheme of compassionate appointments primarily benefits families of regular government employees.

On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondents that despite the deceased employee not being a regular government servant, he had been granted temporary status before his death. Therefore, they contended that the family was eligible for compassionate appointment based on this status and the circumstances surrounding the employee's service. The respondents further contended that the widow of the deceased employee had applied for compassionate appointment immediately following the death of her husband. This demonstrated the family's urgent need for financial assistance at the time.

Findings of the Court

The court observed that the deceased employee had been granted temporary status before his death, indicating some level of recognition by the authorities. This fact was considered relevant to the eligibility of the family for compassionate appointment.

The court noted that the petitioners had failed to comply with previous tribunal orders directing them to reconsider the claim for compassionate appointment. The court deemed this non-compliance as contemptuous and indicated that the petitioners did not have the right to reject the deceased employee for regularization.

The court disagreed with the petitioner's argument that the family's circumstances were no longer in poor circumstances after 22 years. It emphasized that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to alleviate the immediate financial hardship faced by the family upon the death of the employee. The court further observed that the widow of the deceased employee had promptly applied for compassionate appointment after his death, indicating their genuine need at the time.

With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition was dismissed.

Case No. : Writ Petition No.136 of 2024

Case Name: Union of India vs. S. Radhakannan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 202

Counsel for the Petitioner : A.R.L. Sundaresan, ASGI for R. Rajesh Vivekananthan

Counsel for the Respondents : None