REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2206 OF 2006

LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT & ANR. … APPELLANTS VERSUS

M. SELVANAYAGAM @ KUMARAVELU … RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

Aftab Alam, J. 1. This  appeal  by  special  leave  is  directed  against the judgment passed by a Division Bench of  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  

1

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  

2

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.  

3

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  

4

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  

5

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.  

6

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  

7

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  

8

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  

9

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.  

10