LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT & ANRversusM. SELVANAYAGAM @ KUMARAVELU

                         [2011] 4 S.C.R. 244

A        LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT & ANR.
                                   v.
              M. SELVANAYAGAM @ KUMARAVELU ·
                 (Civil Appeal No(s) 2206 of 2006)
                            APRIL 5. 2011
B
              [AFTAB ALAM AND R. M. LODHA, JJ.]

        SERVICE LAW:

c      Compassionate appointment - Son of deceased
  employee applying for appointment after 7M years of the
  death of his father after he attained majority - Wife of
  deceased never applied for appointment - Held: In such a
  case, the appointment cannot be said to sub-serve the basic
0 object and purpose of the scheme - It would rather appear
  that on attaining majorit!', the applicant 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 the case,
  the claim of the appellant did not come under the scheme of
E compassionate appointments - 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
F deceased employee, would be directly in conflict with Articles
  14 and 16 of the Constitution and, therefore, quite bad and
    illegal - In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment,
    it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind - Constitution
    of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16.
G
      The father of the respondent died while In service of
  the appellanf
              I
                Municipality. The respondent was a minor
  at that time and his mother did not apply for the
  appointment. On attaining the age of majority he filed the
H                            244
        LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT v. M.            245
            SELVANAYAGAM @ KUMARAVELU
application, which was after 7% years of the death of his       A
father. The employers declined the appointment. His writ
petition was dismissed by the Single Judge, but allowed
by the Division Bench of the High Court with a direction
to the employers to appoint him within three months.
                                                                B
        Allowing the appeal filed by the employers, the Court

    HELD: 1.1. 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 the employee, his wife and the mother of the C
respondent did not make any request for appointment
and this showed that the demise of the employee
concerned had not caused a very serious financial crisis
in the family. Secondly, following the death of the
employee, the family was given Rs.26,674/- as terminal D
benefits besides family pension to the widow. T,hus, the
dependents of the deceased employee were not left/
completely without any financial resources. The second
reason given for not accepting the respgndent's claim
was rightly rejected by the Division Bench of the High E
Court. [para 5-6] [249-A-E]                           ·

    Balbir Kaur and another vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
and others, 2000 (3) SCR 1053 =AIR 2000 SC 1596 - relied
on.
                                                                F
      1.2; However, the view taken by the Division Bench
of the High Court on the first Issue Is completely divorced
from the object and purpose of the scheme of
compassionate appointments. The High Court accepted
the respondent's explanation for her mother not applying        G
for a job and held that It could not be a ground for denying
appointment to him on compassionate basis. The
explanation that his mother was suffering from anemia
and hypo tension is an afterthought and completely
unacceptable.
    .
:~·:.  .     .
               It has been said a number of times earlier       H



        I
    246      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (2011] 4 S.C.R.

A but it needs to be recalled here that 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
B death, simply because the claimant happened to be one
  of the dependents of the deceased employee, would be
  directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the
  Constitution and, therefore, quite bad and illegal. In
  dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is
c imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind. [para 6-7) [249-
  E-F; 250-F-H; 251-A-B]
       1.3. 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
D several other relevant factors such as the number of
  already pending claims under the scheme and availability
  of vacancies etc. normally the appointment may come
  after several months or even after two to three years. It
  is not possible to lay down a rigid time limit within which
E 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. [para 8) [251-D-E]
F      1.4. In the instant 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
  mjide on his behalf on attaining majority after 7 years and
  6 months of his father's death. In such a case, the
G 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 the case, the
H municipal authorities were clearly right in holding that
     LOCALADMINl~TRAT-ION DEPARTMENT v. M.                 247
           SELVANAYAGAM @ KUMARAVELU

with whatever difficulty; the family of the deceased              A
employee 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. [para 9) [251-F-H; 252-A]
                                                                  B
     1.5. The impugned order of the Division Bench of the
High Court is unsustainable in law and is set aside. [para
1OJ [252-B] ·

                     Case Law Reference:

    2000 (3) SCR 1053 ·       relied on          Para 5 and 6
                                                                  c
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2206 of 2006.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 30.4.2004 of the High         D
Court of Madras in Writ Appeal No. 3308 of 2002.

    R. Venkataramani, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, Prabhu
Ramasubramanian, for the Appellants.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                    E

     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   F
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 appellants
to comply with the direction within three months from the date
of the order.
                                                                  G
     2. The respondent's father Meenakshisundaram worked
as a Watchman in Karaikal Municipality. He died on November
22, 1988, afte( putting in 4 years 3 months and 25 days of
service. He left behind a widowed wife and two sons, including
                                                                  H
    248      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 4 S.C.R.


A 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,
8
  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
C application since the respondent was still a minor. Later on,
  another application was made for his appointment on
  compassionate grounds after 7 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.
D 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)
E 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
F 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. 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
G 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.
H
    LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT v. M.                    249
  SELVANAYAGAM @ KUMARAVELU [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
     5. In the order dated April 19, 2000, two reasons were          A
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               B
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 her relaxation of age and academic                 c
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 el'Tlployee were not left             0
completely without any financial resources.

      6. The second reason given for not accepting 'he
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 othf;I~. AIR 2000 SC        E
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 responc:lent'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    F
not be a· ground for denying appointment to him on
compassionate basis. In this connection, the Division bench
said:

           "So far as the first reasoning is concerned, at the       G
    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           H
    250        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2011) 4 S.C.R.


A         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
B
          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 \'.'/Orks from house to house."
c                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 spP.cific
          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
D         immediately after the death of her husband in the
          municipality, that is, due to bad health. 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
E         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
F 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
G 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 harness one of his eligible
H dependents is given a job with the sole objective to provide
    LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT v. M.                      251 ·
  SELVANAYAGAM @ KUMARAVELU [AFTAB ALAM, J.]                           -
immediate succour to the family which may suddenly find itself             A
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                B
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.                              c
      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 and availability of vacancies etc. normally the                 D
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                     E
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                  F
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            G
father was an employee of the Municipality and he had died
while in service. In the facts of 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,
                                                                           H
   252        SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011) 4 S.C.R.

A 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
8
  but with no order as to costs.          ·

   R.P.                                         Appeal allowed.