P. Narayanan vs The District Collector

K.K. Sasidharan, JJ.—The Executive Officer, Authoor Town Panchayat initially showed compassion to the petitioner by appointing him to the post of Sanitary Supervisor, by order dated 28.03.2007. Thereafter, the District Collector, Tuticorin, once again, showed compassion to the petitioner by appointing him as Junior Assistant, by proceedings dated 21.10.2009. The Director of Town Panchayat, Kuralagam, the second respondent herein, having found that the subsequent appointment was not made in accordance with the relevant Government Orders relating to compassionate appointment, cancelled the said appointment and restored his earlier employment. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 18.11.2013, the petitioner is before this Court.

BRIEF FACTS:

The father of the petitioner, while working as Office Assistant, at Authoor Town Panchayat, died on 12.06.2006. The petitioner, in his capacity as legal representative, was appointed as Sanitary Supervisor on compassionate ground, by order dated 28.03.2007. While he was functioning as Sanitary Supervisor, the first respondent, by order dated 21.10.2009, appointed him as Junior Assistant. The petitioner joined Perungulam Town Panchayat as Junior Assistant, pursuant to the order dated 21.10.2009.

While so, the Director of Town Panchayat, Chennai, vide proceedings dated 05.02.2010, cancelled the appointment of petitioner as Junior Assistant and thereafter, the second respondent, by proceedings dated 18.11.2013, restored his employment as Sanitary Supervisor.

According to the petitioner, his appointment as Junior Assistant was, in fact, a promotion from the post of Sanitary Supervisor. The Director of Town Panchayat was, therefore, not correct in reverting him to the post of Sanitary Supervisor. The petitioner has taken up a further contention that he should have been appointed as a Bill Collector initially and in which case, he would have been promoted to the post of Junior Assistant.

The District Collector, Tuticorin filed a counter-affidavit contending that the order dated 21.10.2009 was not, in effect, an order of promotion. It was essentially an order of appointment on compassionate ground. According to the District Collector, the petitioner, who was appointed earlier on compassionate ground, was, once again, appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate ground and the said material defect was rightly rectified by the Director of Town Panchayat, by passing the impugned order.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

DISCUSSION:

The factual matrix clearly indicates that the petitioner was given compassionate appointment as Sanitary Supervisor, pursuant to the order passed by the Executive Officer, Authoor Town Panchayat, dated 28.03.2007. The appointment was purely on compassionate ground and it was not with reference to a particular notification or employment exchange. The petitioner joined duty as Sanitary Supervisor on 28.03.2007. While he was working as Sanitary Supervisor, once again, he was given compassionate appointment as Junior Assistant, by proceedings dated 21.10.2009.

The compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. The compassionate appointment can be made only in case the rules provide for the same. The compassionate appointment is essentially made with a view to help the family to tide over the difficulties experienced by them on account of the sudden death of the breadwinner of the family. The compassionate appointment is a one time measure. There is no question of showing compassion on multiple occasions. In case a person is given appointment on compassionate ground, he should accept or reject it. The compassionate appointment is governed by the Service Regulations. The appointee on compassionate ground is not having a justifiable claim for another post once again on compassionate ground. In case the post of Junior Assistant is available, the same should be advertised and everybody should be given an opportunity to compete. The counter-affidavit filed by the District Collector and the proceedings available on record clearly show that the post of Junior Assistant is a direct recruitment post. The petitioner has made a claim that he was promoted from the post of Sanitary Supervisor to the post of Junior Assistant. However, the available records does not indicate that the post of Junior Assistant is a promotional post and the post of Sanitary Supervisor is the feeder category. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention taken by the petitioner to the effect that the appointment on 21.10.2009 was, in effect, only a promotion and not a new appointment on compassionate ground.

The petitioner has no case that he was denied the benefit of his earlier service. The petitioner is entitled to all the benefits including seniority, in view of his appointment as Sanitary Supervisor, vide proceedings dated 07.12.2013. The fact that he was posted as Junior Assistant, in the meantime, would not amount to denial of his service benefits. In short, by cancelling the subsequent order of appointment, the petitioner would be restored to his earlier post with all attended service benefits.

The Supreme Court in MGB Gramin Bank Vs. Chakrawarti Singh, , observed that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. The Supreme Court said:

The Courts and the Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulation framed in respect thereof did not cover and contemplate such appointments.

CONCLUSION:

The second respondent, having found that the petitioner was illegally appointed to a higher post on compassionate ground, notwithstanding his earlier appointment on the very same ground, rightly cancelled the order dated 21.10.2009. I do not find any error or illegality in the said order liable for correction by exercising the power of judicial review.

In the upshot, I dismiss the Writ Petition. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs.