- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
S. Mohan v. Government Of T.N And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant's mother, a teacher in the Bodinayakanur Municipal Girls' Middle School with more than twenty years of service, died in harness on 8-1-1974. At that time, two of her three sons were employed, and the appellant's father was receiving a pension of less than Rs 300 per month. The opinion does not state what terminal benefits, if any, were received by the family.
After a lapse of ten years and eight months, the appellant was appointed on compassionate grounds on 6-9-1984 in a leave vacancy for three months; his services were terminated on 17-12-1984. He later submitted detailed family particulars on 12-8-1985. On 19-10-1987, he was appointed as Junior Assistant in Bodinayakanur Municipality on compassionate grounds and joined duty. The Government (Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department) refused to ratify this appointment by order dated 21-12-1989, leading to termination of his service by order dated 3-1-1990.
The appellant moved the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. By interim order, he was continued in service. Ultimately, on 14-12-1990, the Tribunal dismissed his application, holding that the appointment was contrary to government orders and that the Government was correct in refusing ratification. The appellant then filed the present appeal, which the court decided in this opinion.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the appellant could be appointed on compassionate grounds after a lapse of about ten years from the date of his mother's death.
- Whether the circumstances of the family justified an appointment on compassionate grounds.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The appellant's counsel contended that the appellant's appointment on compassionate grounds was justified.
- It was urged that the appellant had not suppressed any facts when seeking compassionate appointment.
Respondents'/Government Position (as reflected in the record)
- The Government refused to ratify the appellant's compassionate appointment (order dated 21-12-1989) and directed immediate action, resulting in termination.
- The Tribunal accepted the view that the appointment was contrary to the relevant government orders and upheld the Government's refusal to ratify.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138, (1994) 27 ATC 537 SCC at p. 141 | Compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period (to be specified in rules); it is not a vested right exercisable at any time; it is intended to help the family overcome the immediate financial crisis caused by death of the breadwinner and cannot be claimed after the crisis is over. | The court applied this principle to hold that seeking compassionate appointment about ten years after the mother's death did not meet the object of addressing an immediate financial crisis, especially given existing sources of family support at the time of death. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court treated the determinative inquiry as whether compassionate appointment was permissible and justified in the given circumstances, particularly in light of the long delay between the employee's death and the request for employment.
Relying on Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, the court reiterated that compassionate employment is not a vested entitlement and must be linked to the immediate financial crisis faced by the family upon the death of the sole breadwinner; it cannot be granted after an unreasonable lapse of time when the crisis has passed.
On the facts, the court emphasized that the appellant's mother was not the sole breadwinner at the time of her death because two sons were already employed and the father received a (small) pension. The appellant sought compassionate employment after about ten years, making it "obvious" to the court that there was no immediate financial crisis warranting an out-of-turn appointment. Any financial crisis attributable to the mother's death, if it existed, would have been ten years prior to the appellant's application.
The court also noted that the appellant had been continued in service only due to interim orders during litigation. This continuation did not assist him because he was aware that interim protection was subject to the final outcome.
Accordingly, the court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's decision upholding the Government's refusal to ratify the appointment and the consequent termination.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED: The appeal was dismissed, and the court declined to set aside the Tribunal's order. There was no order as to costs.
Implications: The Tribunal's dismissal stands, and the Government's refusal to ratify the compassionate appointment is effectively affirmed, sustaining the termination order. The opinion applies existing law on compassionate appointment (including the requirement of proximity to the death-related financial crisis) and does not indicate that any new precedent was created.
1. The mother of the appellant died in harness on 8-1-1974 after more than twenty years of service as a teacher in the Bodinayakanur Municipal Girls' Middle School. At the time of her death, out of her three sons including the appellant, two were employed. Nothing is mentioned about the terminal benefits received by the family on the death of the mother. The father of the appellant, at the time of the death of the mother, was receiving a small pension of less than Rs 300 per month.
2. Ten years and eight months thereafter, on 6-9-1984 the appellant was appointed by the respondents in a leave vacancy for a period of three months on compassionate grounds. His services were terminated on 17-12-1984. Thereafter the appellant on 12-8-1985 submitted full particulars regarding the family of his deceased mother, the status of the two brothers and their income and also particulars regarding the income of the father. On 19-10-1987, he was appointed as Junior Assistant in Bodinayakanur Municipality on compassionate grounds. The order of appointment is produced before us. The subject relates to the appointment of the appellant as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds. The appellant, accordingly, joined duty. The appellant's service was terminated under an order dated 3-1-1990. This order, inter alia, states that the appellant had requested the respondents not to issue any adverse orders since he had applied to the Government for ratification. His application for ratification was forwarded to the Secretary to the Government through proper channel under office letter dated 13-11-1989. However, the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department by its order dated 21-12-1989 had refused to ratify the appointment of the appellant on compassionate grounds and had directed immediate action to be taken and a report sent. Accordingly by the said order, the services of the appellant were terminated and he was requested to hand over the charge immediately.
3. Thereupon, the appellant moved the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. Under an interim order of the Tribunal, the appellant was continued in service. Ultimately, by its order dated 14-12-1990, the Tribunal dismissed the application of the appellant holding that his appointment was contrary to the government orders in that connection and that the action of the Government in not ratifying the appointment was correct. The appellant has filed the present appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that the appointment of the appellant on compassionate grounds was justified and that the appellant had not suppressed any fact at the time of seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The question, however, is whether in the facts and circumstances set out, could the appointment of the appellant have been made on compassionate grounds after a lapse of 10 years from the date of the death of his mother. Secondly, whether the circumstances justify the appointment of the appellant on compassionate grounds. On the first question, this Court, in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138, (1994) 27 ATC 537 SCC at p. 141 has observed that the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the Rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. In the present case, at the time of the death of the mother, she was not the sole breadwinner of the family. Two sons were already employed and the father was receiving a small pension. The appellant sought employment on compassionate grounds after a lapse of 10 years. It was, therefore, obvious that there was no immediate financial crisis in the family which would warrant any out of turn appointment of the appellant on compassionate grounds. The financial crisis, if any, caused by the death of the mother was 10 years prior to the application of the appellant. At the time of the death of his mother, the appellant was around 12 or 13 years of age and his two brothers were employed. Looking to all the circumstances, the Government had rightly refused to give him appointment. The fact that the appellant was continued in service on account of the interim orders passed during the pendency of the proceedings taken out by the appellant will not be of any help to the appellant since he was throughout aware that these were only interim orders which were subject to the outcome of the proceedings. We do not see any reason to set aside the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
Alert