The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has held that an application for compassionate appointment lapsed several years from the death of the deceased employee is not permissible.
P.M. Manjusha, the petitioner states that her father Mr PD Mohanan served as driver and died on 22.02.1994, while he was in service and the mother of the writ petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds on 24.06.2010. The mother was working in the respondent / Department and died on 23.09.2013.
Again the petitioner applied to provide an appointment on compassionate grounds on 03.01.2014. The said application submitted by the writ petitioner was withdrawn on 08.12.2014 and again it was re-submitted on 22.02.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition to consider the said application dated 22.02.2016.
The respondent considered the application submitted by the writ petitioner on 22.02.2016 and rejected the said application in proceedings dated 08.11.2019, stating that due to the veracity of vacancies request for a compassionate appointment could not be acceded.
The scheme of compassionate appointment is a concession and cannot be claimed as an absolute right. The scheme being an exception, cannot be expanded to provideappointments on compassionate grounds in a larger manner.
It was observed that once an application was filed by any one of the legal heirs of the deceased employee and the said legal heir became ineligible, it was not as if that other legal heir can apply irrespective of the length of time.
The bench consist of Justice S M Subramaniam observed that the Rule of Reservation, merit assessment and no other assessment has been made and therefore, the large-scale appointments cause inefficiency in public administration, which would result in violations of the constitutional provisions.
“A lapse of time would also provide a ground to draw a factual inference that the penurious circumstances aroused on account of the sudden death of an employee became vanished”, the court said. The bench held that a compassionate appointment cannot be granted after several years.
Mrs M.Prithi with Mr C. Deivasigamani appeared on behalf of the petitioner and Mr K.Umesh Rao appeared for the respondent.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanPremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
