AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—Heard both sides.
The petitioner filed OA No. 6830 of 1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking to challenge an order, dated 24.4.1998
passed by the second respondent. By the said order, the petitioner was informed that he cannot be granted any appointment on compassionate
ground on the ground that the petitioner''s name was kept in the seniority list as Sl. No. 202 and if any vacancy arises in the police department,
depending upon the vacancy and seniority list, he may be considered.
The petitioner was the son of one Manavalan, who was the police constable. He got retired on 1.1.1977 on medical invalidation. At the time of
his retirement, he was 54 years old. As per the Government directive, dated 23.11.1982, the legal heirs of a person, who was medically
invalidated, can get employment on compassionate ground only if he has not crossed the age of 50 years. Therefore, the petitioner was informed
that he cannot be entitled for any compassionate appointment on the ground of his father was medically invalidated, since his father was 54 years
old.
The petitioner filed W.P. No. 13305 of 1994 before this Court, seeking to challenge the said order. The said writ petition got transferred to the
tribunal and was renumbered as T.A. No. 80 of 1996. The Tribunal, without reference to any rule position, gave a direction stating that the
Government letter, dated 23.11.1982 cannot stand in the way of the petitioner claiming benefit as per the earlier order of the Government and
therefore, his claim should be considered.
When the same was not forthcoming, he filed a contempt application before the Tribunal in C.A. No. 322 of 1998. The said contempt
application was rejected by the tribunal, by an order, dated 27.7.1998. It was thereafter, the petitioner filed the present case before the Tribunal.
In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 38092 of 2006.
On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed a reply affidavit, dated 19.4.1999. In paragraph 10 of the reply affidavit, it was averred
as follows:
Regarding the averments in paragraph 6(vii) of the application, it is submitted that this Honourable Tribunal has issued direction in T.A. 80/96
(W.P.13305/94) on 19-6-97 to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for appointment to a suitable post with reference to the
orders issued in G.O.Ms. No. 1025, Labour and Employment, dated 22-11-76 and hence his name was considered for appointment as Office
Assistant on compassionate grounds. The applicant has to wait for this turn.
Even otherwise the petitioner has no matter of right to demand compassionate appointment only on the ground that his father was medically
invalidated. Unless a scheme relating to compassionate appointment provides for such a contingency, the petitioner cannot as a matter of right seek
compassionate appointment.
In fact, a very similar issue came to be considered by the Supreme Court in V. Sivamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported in
2008 (13) SCC 730. In paragraph 35 of the said judgment, it was observed as follows:
The issue is not what is most advantageous to the government servant, but what is the actual term of the scheme. The question is not whether
an interpretation which is more advantageous or beneficial to the government servant should be adopted. The question is whether the policy as it
stands which is clear and unambiguous, is so unreasonable or arbitrary or absurd as to invite an interpretation other than the normal and usual
meaning. Matters of policy are within the domain of the executive. A policy is not open to interference merely because the court feels that it is not
practical or less advantageous for government servants for whose benefit the policy is made or because it considers that a more fairer alternative is
possible. Compassionate appointment being an exception to the general rule of appointment, can only be claimed strictly in accordance with the
terms of scheme and not by seeking relaxation of the terms of the scheme. The fact that on account of certain delays in processing the application,
a government servant may lose the benefit of the scheme, is no ground to relax the terms of the scheme. If in a particular case the processing of an
application is deliberately delayed to deny the benefit to the government servant, the inaction may be challenged on the ground of want of bona
fides or ulterior motives. But where the time taken to process the application (through the Medical Board, District/State Level Committee and the
Government) is reasonable, the government servant cannot contend that relief should be extended, even if the left over period is less than five
years. Let us given an example. If an application for compassionate appointment on the ground of medical invalidation is given five years and one
week before the date of superannuation, obviously the government servant cannot expect that the entire process of scrutiny, medical examination,
recommendation and consideration at three levels should be completed in one week. He cannot contend that when he had made the application the
left over period was more than five years and therefore his dependant is entitled to appointment. As stated above, these are matters of policy and
the courts will not interfere with the terms of a policy, unless it is opposed to any constitutional or statutory provision or suffers from manifest
arbitrariness and unreasonableness.
In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner''s father got medically invalidated only at the age of 54 years. He had admittedly crossed 50 years
of age. Hence the petitioner is ineligible to get compassionate appointment. Further, the Supreme Court has time and again emphasised that
compassionate appointment is not an another source of recruitment unless a scheme comes from the Government.
In the light of the above, this writ petition is misconceived and lacks in merit. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.