M. Dhanalakshmi vs The Director General of Police and Others

Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.—1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.02.2013 and for a direction to the respondents to provide her compassionate appointment commensurate with her qualification.

The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:--

"The father of the petitioner, who was employed as Head Constable under the second respondent, had expired on 01.02.2004 in harness. Her mother also expired on 03.4.2004, i.e., two months of the demise of her father, leaving behind the petitioner and her younger sister. The petitioner was aged about 12 years at that time. Subsequently, the petitioner and her sister were brought up by their paternal aunt with great financial hardship. Just before attaining majority, the petitioner applied to the second respondent on 22.03.2010 seeking appointment on compassionate ground and the said application was rejected by order dated 13.5.2010 on the ground that such application has been made after a lapse of 6 years from the date of death of her father. In such circumstances, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 2524 of 2012 for reconsideration of her appointment for compassionate appointment and the Madurai Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.11.2012, remitted the case to the respondents for fresh consideration in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on the matter. This Court also directed the authority concerned to reconsider the application of the petitioner and pass fresh orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order treating the application as having been filed within time. On the basis of the above order, the petitioner sent representation dated 03.01.2013 to the second respondent, who, in turn, relying on the instructions laid down in Government Letter in Ms. No. 88 Labour and Employment Department dated 04.05.2010, rejected her representation for compassionate appointment by order dated 21.02.2013 which is impugned in this Writ Petition."

A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent on behalf of the respondents. While not denying about the basic facts, it has been stated that the application had been filed after a lapse of six years and considering all the relevant circumstances, the appointment for compassionate appointment has been rejected.

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the records.

The question of appointment on compassionate ground in respect of the dependents of the Government servant has been the subject matter of several Government Orders issued from time to time.

There cannot be a controversy in view of the settled position of law that appointment on compassionate ground is not automatic, as it would amount to back door entry to a post, bypassing the Rules to be followed for such appointment. Nevertheless, to tide over the financial constraints of a family due to sudden demise of the breadwinner of a family, the State Government or its undertaking or for that purpose, any employer, would be entitled to frame Scheme/Rules for such appointment by prescribing the conditions as well as the eligibility. Hence, the request for appointment on compassionate grounds would be considered with reference to the Scheme/Rules or any of the provisions framed for the said purpose, either by the Government or by the employers, as the case may be.

In the case on hand, the father of the petitioner, while he was working as Constable under the second respondent, had expired on 01.02.2004 in harness. Her mother also expired on 03.4.2004. At the time of the death of her father, the petitioner was aged 12 years and for the purpose of making application for appointment on compassionate grounds, she should have completed 18 years. Hence, she could not make any application for appointment on compassionate grounds immediate on the death of her father.

The petitioner at the first instance, made an application for appointment on compassionate grounds on 22.3.2010 after passing X standard and qualifying herself in English typewriting. But the same was rejected by the respondents on 13.5.2010 on the ground that the petitioner ought to have applied within three years of the death of her father. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner completed 18 years of age in June 2010, i.e., hardly two months after the passing of the earlier impugned order dated 13.5.2010. Even thereafter, she made representations twice, i.e., on 23.02.2011 and 03.01.2013 seeking for appointment of compassionate ground. The said request of the petitioner was also rejected by the respondents by order dated 21.02.2013, which is impugned before this Court.

When the petitioner''s earlier application was rejected on the ground that she did not complete 18 years of age, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not diligent in seeking for compassionate appointment at the earliest point of time. It is very unfortunate that the petitioner and her younger sister lost both her parents in the gap of two months. One can understand that in the instant case, the petitioner could not have approached the authorities for compassionate appointment within the stipulated period of three years from the date of death of her father since she was only a minor at that time and the minors cannot be expected to know of the opportunity of employment on compassionate ground on the death of parents. In fact, immediately after attaining 18 years of age and also after qualifying himself, when the petitioner came forward with the applications on 23.02.2011 and 03.01.2013, in all fairness, the respondents should have considered the petitioner''s claim on merits. Just because there is a delay in submitting the application for the said reason by the petitioner for compassionate appointment, it cannot be said that the family of the deceased Government servant has got over the indigent circumstances. It is also to be noted that the petitioner and her younger sister were educated at the mercy of their paternal aunt. In the given situation, it is very difficult for them to get two square meals a day. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the family of the deceased government servant cannot be left in lurch.

The Hon''ble Apex Court as well as this Court, in a catena of decisions, have categorically held that the period of limitation has to be reckoned only from the date of attaining majority and not from the date of the death of the deceased, who was working in the respondent Department.

In this regard, this Court, even in the earlier round of litigation, by its order dated 26.11.2012 in W.P. (MD) No. 2524 of 2012, has held in paragraph 7 as under:--

"It is only in cases where there are other members of the family who could apply for appointment on compassionate grounds that the prescription of the period of three years can be literally applied. In cases where all the members of the family are only minors, the prescription of 3 years cannot hold good. It is a different matter if any member who is eligible to apply, fails to apply on the ground that he or she was not educationally qualified and that he/she had to wait for somebody else to attain majority. In such cases, the respondents can apply this 3 year prescription. In cases of this nature, it can be applied only from the date of attaining majority."

At this juncture, it is worthwhile to refer the case of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. [, 2000 (6) S.C.C. 493] wherein Their Lordships have held that in the case of appointment considering the social and economic justice as enshrined in the Constitution, denial of deserving cases are liable to be set aside. Further, the purpose of providing compassionate ground to a son or daughter or a near relative of the deceased government servant is to render assistance to the family, which is found in indigent circumstances. Hence in considering the case for compassionate appointments, the authorities are supposed to adopt a humane outlook. I do not find any delay or laches on the part of the petitioner.

In such circumstances, it is a deserving case where the respondents should have shown some compassion while considering the petitioner''s application for compassionate appointment. Unfortunately, the respondents did not seem to have shown any compassion at all and mercilessly rejected the petitioner''s application on a hyper technical ground despite the earlier direction of this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 2524 of 2012, driving the young girl, who is surviving at the mercy of a relative, from pillar to post and all her efforts ultimately proved futile as the second respondent herein rejected her claim on the ground that she had not claimed within the three years period.

That apart, the Government has recently issued G.O. No. 155 Labour and Employment Department dated 10.12.2014 modifying the earlier Government Orders by virtue of which the cases of minors, who applied for compassionate appointment between the period 23.8.2005 and 03.5.2010, could be considered on the date of their attaining majority. In the instant case, since the earliest application of the petitioner was dated 22.3.2010, she is entitled to the benefit of the G.O..

In view foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the petitioner''s case deserves consideration inasmuch as she had diligently made a claim once in the year 2010 and thereafter, immediately after attaining the age of 18, in the years 2011 and 2013 and in such circumstances, rejection of her application on the ground that it was not made within three years was not justified. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the second respondent is hereby quashed and the second respondent is directed to provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground in respect of any suitable job within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.