Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a writ appeal filed before the Madras High Court challenging the dismissal of a writ petition that sought compassionate appointment for the daughter of a deceased police constable. The appellant's husband, who served as a Police Constable, died in harness on 19.10.2008. Shortly thereafter, on 22.08.2011, the appellant, being the widow, submitted a representation to the police authorities requesting compassionate appointment for her daughter, Karthiga. That request was rejected because the daughter was a minor at the time. Years later, after the daughter attained the age of majority, another representation was made on 19.01.2018. The authorities rejected this representation on the ground that several years had elapsed since the death and that any application under the relevant compassionate appointment scheme must be submitted within three years. Aggrieved, the appellant moved the High Court under Article 226 by filing W.P.No.26710 of 2019. The learned Single Judge, relying on settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India, dismissed the writ petition on 12.09.2019, holding that the application was hopelessly time-barred and beyond the permissible period under the scheme. The appellant then preferred the present writ appeal, W.A.No.2205 of 2023, seeking to set aside the Single Judge's order. The Division Bench, comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice N. Senthilkumar, after hearing both sides, observed that compassionate appointment is an exception to the constitutional rule of equality in public employment and must be claimed within a reasonable time. The Bench emphasised that the terms and conditions of the scheme are to be scrupulously followed and that a belated application defeats the very purpose of providing immediate succour to the family in distress. Since in the present case more than ten years had passed from the date of death before the second representation was made, the Court found no infirmity or perversity in the Single Judge’s decision. Accordingly, the writ appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Delay and Laches - Scheme for Compassionate Appointment - The appellant's husband died in service in 2008; a representation was made in 2018 for compassionate appointment for the daughter, which was rejected as beyond three years under the scheme. The court held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a lapse of many years and that the terms and conditions of the scheme must be scrupulously followed; the writ appeal was dismissed. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether compassionate appointment can be granted after a lapse of many years from the death of the employee, and whether the rejection of the application on the ground of delay and being beyond three years under the scheme is valid.
Final Decision
The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a lapse of many years
- Terms and conditions of compassionate appointment scheme must be scrupulously followed
- Application for compassionate appointment beyond three years under the scheme is not maintainable
