S.NAGAMUTHU, J Challenge in this Writ Appeal is to the Order dated 18.06.2007 made in W.P.(MD).No.9311 of 2006, wherein, a learned Single Judge of this Court has declined to interfere with the Order of the second respondent, who has refused to provide employment on compassionate grounds for the appellant herein on account of demise of her father, Mr.Mahamuni, who died while in service in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as Line Inspector at Alagarkoil Section on 09.11.1996.
2. Soon after the demise of Mr.Mahamuni, the elder brother of the appellant, by name Senthoorapandi, made an application on 19.03.1997 seeking employment on compassionate grounds. Unfortunately, when the said request was under consideration of the respondents, he also passed away on 18.04.2002. Thereafter, on 16.12.2002, the mother of the appellant made an application to the first respondent seeking employment on compassionate ground to the appellant. The said request was rejected by the first respondent by order dated 12.03.2003 in U.Ni.A/Ni.Pi.2/U.tha.3/Ko.Va.Ve/P.No.192/03 on the ground that yet another brother of the appellant, by name, Mr.Sundaramoorthy had already been employed, and thus, the appellant is not entitled for employment on compassionate grounds, since the family was not in distress. Initially, the appellant did not choose to challenge the said order. However, she made a representation on 17.12.2003 requesting the second respondent to re-consider the issue. The said request was again rejected by the second respondent by order dated 01.11.2006 on the very same ground.
3. Challenging the said order dated 01.11.2006, the appellant filed W.P.(MD).No.9311 of 2006. During the pendency of the same, on a request made by the appellant seeking to amend the prayer in the said Writ Petition, it was so amended, and thus, challenge to the Order dated 12.03.2003 was also incorporated in the prayer.
4. It was contended before the learned Single Judge by the appellant that the brother of the appellant Mr.Sundaramoorthy was employed only as a Casual Labour until he was absorbed permanently in the year 1998 and he got married in the year 1999 and separated from the family. It was further contended that Mr.Sundaramoorthy was not permanently employed under the Board as on the date of demise of his father, and therefore, according to the appellant, she is entitled for employment on compassionate ground.
5. In the counter filed before the learned Single Judge, it was contended that her brother Mr.Sundaramoorthy was employed and he was living along with the appellant, her mother and extending monetary help to the family. It was also contended that since the family was not in distress, the request for employment on compassionate grounds was rejected. It was further contended by the respondents that the request was belated and that was yet another reason for rejection of the claim of the appellant.
6. Having considered the rival submissions, the learned Single Judge, by means of the impugned order, declined to interfere with the Order of rejection on the ground of delay as well as on the ground that the family was not in indigent circumstances. Aggrieved over the said Order, the appellant has come forward with the present Writ Appeal.
7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel appealing for the respondents and perused the records carefully.
8. Indisputably, employment on compassionate grounds is not a matter of right of a legal heir of a deceased employee, but it is only a concession shown by an employer with a view to rescue the family from indigent circumstances. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, on more than one occasion, has reiterated the law that public employment should be open to all to compete and there should not be any back door entry. In respect of employment on compassionate grounds, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank v. Ashwinikumar Taneja reported in 2004 (7) SCC 265, has categorically held that it is not a matter of right of legal heirs of the deceased to get employment on compassionate grounds, but it is only a concession shown. The same has been reiterated subsequently in a number of Judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. Thus, the law has been well settled on this aspect.
9. Applying the said principles to the facts of the case, if the facts of the present case are considered, it is ipso-facto clear that the appellant is not entitled for employment on compassionate grounds. Under the scheme formulated by the electricity board, if a member of the family of the deceased is employed and he is helping the family of the deceased monetarily, then any other member would not be entitled for employment on compassionate ground. In the case on hand, admittedly, the brother of the appellant was employed as Casual Labour under the respondent as on the date of the demise of his father. Though in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it has been stated that her brother Mr.Sundaramoorthy was not employed on the date of the death of his father, now it has been admitted that he was employed, but not on the permanent basis.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that since Mr.Sundaramoorthy was not permanently employed, such employment cannot be considered to be an impediment for yet another member of the family to get employment on compassionate grounds.
11. In our considered opinion, the said argument of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be countenanced. As we have already stated, the object of providing employment on compassionate grounds is only to rescue the family from penury. If the family is already supported by a member of the family by drawing a decent amount out of a casual employment, then, that would be suffice to reject the claim of yet another member of the family, who seeks employment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, in our considered opinion, though the employment of M.Sundaramoorthy, the brother of the appellant, was on casual basis, still, that itself can be a sufficient ground to deny employment on compassionate grounds to the appellant.
12. Nextly, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit assuming that Mr.Sundamoorthy was employed, since he was living separately and since he was not extending any help to the family, the appellant is entitled for employment on compassionate grounds.
13. A perusal of the impugned order would go to show that as on the date of the demise of his father, Mr.Sundarmoorthy, the appellant, her mother and yet another brother were living together under a common roof and he got married only in the year 1999. From the averments found in the affidavit, it could be seen that even according to the appellant, Mr.Sundamoorthy got separated after his marriage in the year 1999, which means, between 1996 and 1999 Mr.Sundamoorthy was extending help to the family. Thus, it is very clear that as on the date of the death of the deceased, the family was not in indigent circumstances, as it was financially supported by yet another earning member of the family viz., M.Sundaramoorthy. The impugned order further goes to show that the name of Mr.Sundaramoorthy was deleted from the Family Card only in the year 2000, which would go to only support the contention of the respondents that Mr.Sundarmoorthy was all along living with the appellant. Thus, the second ground of attack made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant cannot also be countenanced.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relies on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Ravi v. Chief Engineer (Personnel) reported in 2002 (4) LLN 1132, wherein, this Court had an occasion to consider the denial of employment on compassionate grounds, which was based on a second request made by the legal heir of the deceased employee. That was a case, where while the first claim made by a legal heir of the deceased was pending, he died. Therefore, a second request was made by yet another son, which naturally had to be made beyond three years as stipulated in the regulation and on that ground, the request was rejected. This Court, taking a lenient view that since in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the second request had to be made belatedly, because of the demise of the person, who made the first request, directed the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to consider the request for employment on compassionate grounds. In our considered opinion, the view taken in the said Judgment would not improve the case of the appellant in any manner, for the reason, as we have already stated, here, rejection of the request of the appellant for employment on compassionate grounds is justified mainly on the ground that the family was not in indigent circumstances, since there was yet another member of the family employed and he was financially supporting the family.
15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant nextly, relied on another Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Jayapal. C. v. The Director of Medical Education reported in 2005 (5) CTC 655, wherein, the Division Bench gave a direction to the authorities concerned to consider the request of one of the legal heirs of the deceased employee for employment on compassionate grounds, since the applicant, who was already employed, was living separately and not contributing to the family of the deceased.
16. In the case on hand, the facts are distinguishable. As we have already noticed, on facts, it has been found out that Mr.Sundamoorthy, the elder brother of the appellant, was under a common roof and extending help to the family of the deceased.
17. The learned counsel for the appellant again relies on a Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Suptg.Engr. Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle vs. Jaya reported in 2007 6 MLJ 1011, wherein the Division Bench has held that any rigid approach or too technical objections may defeat the very object of the scheme. In our considered opinion, even taking a lenient view and not a rigid view, the appellant is not entitled for employment on compassionate grounds, for the reasons, which we have elaborately stated above.
18. In State Bank of India v. Somvir Singh reported in 2007 (4) SCC 778, while considering the scope of power of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of matters relating to employment on compassionate grounds, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the power of judicial review can be exercised only to examine as to whether the decision making process finding that the individual is not entitled for employment has been made in accordance with the scheme or not and the Court cannot substitute its conclusions in the place of the conclusions arrived at by the authorities. Applying the principles stated in the said Judgment, we are of the firm view, since we find no infirmity in the decision making process of the respondents, which was upheld by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal. As we have already extracted above, the view expressed in Punjab National Bank v. Ashwinikumar Taneja reported in 2004 (7) SCC 265 also supports the view taken by the learned Single Judge. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on several occasions, more particularly, in Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1, opportunity to compete for public employment should be made available to all, who are eligible. If the appellant feels that she is also competent, it is always open for her to compete and to seek employment in accordance with the relevant Rules. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgments cited supra, she cannot claim any special right to claim employment without standing in the queue of the job seekers to participate in the competition.
19. In view of all the above, we find no merit in the Writ Appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs.
NB To
1.The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
2.The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, Madurai.