P. Jayaprakash Kannan vs The Superintendent of Police

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—Petitioner seeks to quash the order of the respondent dated 14.11.2006 and to direct the respondent to

provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

The case of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner Palsamy was working as Sub-Inspector of Police in the Police Department and he

died on 10.3.1984 while in service. At the time of death of his father, petitioner was 10 years old. The mother of the petitioner made an application

on 22.6.1992 to provide compassionate appointment for herself and the respondent informed that the request of the petitioner''s mother was under

consideration. Necessary certificate from the Tahsildar about the indigent status of the petitioner''s family was also obtained and submitted before

the respondent. As there was no action from the respondent, the mother of the petitioner sought for suitable employment to the petitioner on

compassionate ground. Petitioner was asked to produce the relevant certificates and after enquiry, the respondent, by proceeding dated 2.4.2003

informed that pursuant to the enquiry made by the Intelligence Wing, it was found that the sister of the petitioner by name Jalaja was employed as

Police Constable and one of the brother of the petitioner Karthikeyan was employed in a private company and another brother Ganesan was doing

Milk business and yet another brother was working in abroad and hence as per G.O.Ms. No. 998 Labour and Employment Department, dated

2.5.1981, petitioner was not entitled to get compassionate appointment.

According to the petitioner, her sister Jalaja joined the Police Department in the year 1981 and got married in the year 1986 and even prior to

that she resigned her job and hence the indigent situation of the family of the petitioner remained same. The two brothers Karthikeyan and Ganesan

were living separately and they have no link with the family of the petitioner and that the another brother working in abroad left the family even at

the young age and he has no connection with the family of the petitioner. Hence according to the petitioner, G.O.Ms. No. 998 Labour and

Employment Department, dated 2.5.1981 is not applicable to his case. Petitioner made further representation to the respondent, which was

rejected by the respondent by his proceeding dated 14.11.2006. To quash the said proceeding and to provide compassionate appointment

petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as respondent.

The point in issue is whether the petitioner has got any right to seek compassionate appointment and whether the rejection of petitioner''s request

by the respondent is justified.

Admittedly, petitioner''s father died on 10.3.1984 while in service and at that time the petitioner was only ten years old, that is, petitioner was a

minor, not eligible to submit application seeking compassionate appointment. Petitioner''s mother submitted an application for compassionate

appointment for herself only on 22.6.1992 and she has not pursued the said application thereafter. The date on which the petitioner applied for

compassionate appointment is not mentioned in the affidavit. However, admittedly, petitioner''s sister was working in the Police Department from

the year 1981, who got married only in the year 1986. Therefore, admittedly, on the date of death of petitioner''s father i.e., on 10.3.1984, sister

of the petitioner was in Government Service. Therefore, petitioner''s family could not be treated to be in indigent situation.

There was a prohibition for seeking compassionate appointment to another member of the family if any member of the family of the deceased is

already on employment. Only in the year 1993 through G.O.Ms. NO. 135, Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.7.1993, the said

condition was relaxed stating that even if any other member of the family of the deceased Government servant is on employment on the date of

death of the Government Servant and if the said person is not looking after the family and is living separately, another member of the family can

also apply for compassionate appointment. The said Government order has no retrospective effect. Further, during the discreet enquiry it was

found that the family of the petitioner is not in indigent situation.

In the light of the above factual findings given by the respondent in the impugned order and the petitioner being minor, aged 10 years on the date

of death of the petitioner''s father, he cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right.

The object behind the compassionate appointment is that the family members of the Government Servant, dying in harness, should not be driven

to the streets. In the decision reported in State of Haryana and Another Vs. Ankur Gupta, , in paragraph 6 it is held as follows:

...The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking

into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases the object

is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. But such appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the

rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased.

In the decision reported in 2007 WLR 796 E. Ramasamy v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Ors., a Division Bench of this Court considered

similar issue of rejecting the request of a candidate, who was minor at the time of death of the Electricity Board employee. The Division Bench held

that the application submitted by the minor after attaining majority cannot be considered as valid application as it was submitted beyond three years

and within three years he was ineligible to apply.

Here in this case also, the petitioner was aged ten years in the year 1984 and he attained majority in the year 1992 and he had chosen to apply

for compassionate appointment very recently i.e., after 2000 (date not mentioned in the affidavit). The said request was rejected by the respondent

based on Government Orders. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order.

There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.