Service matter - appointment on compassionate grounds - Delay of 12 years - Rejected - their Lordships of High court held that when there are sufficient reasons for delay - the delay never comes as obstruction to appoint him on compassionate grounds =
As the petitioner's father Vadivel (deceased) was a Class IV employee in the second respondent-Panchayat Union, on a regular appointment and had died in harness on 2.10.1995, the petitioner is entitled to get appointment on compassionate grounds.
(f) Due to the sudden demise of the petitioner's father, the entire family was stranded on the streets in the midst of lengthy litigation, and only after the decree of the Civil Court in the said suit, the petitioner was able to obtain the following certificates:
(i) Conduct Certificate;
(ii) Death Certificate of the deceased Vadivel (petitioner's father);
(iii) Tahsildar Certificate of the death of Vadivel in harness;
(iv) Tahsildar Certificate about the properties held by the deceased and the source of income;
(v) The Certificate issued by the Tahsildar that the deceased Vadivel's widow was not re-married and
(vi) The Certificate issued by the Tahsildar about the family status of the petitioner.
(g) After getting the necessary certificates, on 14.2.2007, the petitioner applied to the first respondent-District Collector for appointment on compassionate grounds due to the death of his father.
The District Collector however passed the order on 2.1.2008, rejecting the application on compassionate grounds, on the sole ground that the application for appointment on compassionate grounds, was made after three years from the date of the death of the petitioner's father on 2.10.1995. =
When it is the consistent policy of the State to give compassionate appointment to any one of the heirs of the deceased Government servant who dies in harness, in this case, the first respondent/District Collector has outrightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that it was belated, though the said claim was not with any inordinate delay and that too it was neither wilful nor wanton, which had been duly explained by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the Court, by supporting material documents in the typed set of papers filed along with the Writ Petition.
The whole delay was due to the fact that the petitioner approached the Civil Court for getting declared his status so also the Revenue authorities for necessary Certificates, as a matter of policy, to prove his claim for compassionate appointment. In such a position, it is the duty of the respondents to ensure that the petitioner's expectations are fulfilled "mutatis-mutandis" the Government policies and its Departments, in administering the affairs of the country, are expected to honour their statements of policy or intention. The policy statement cannot be disregarded unfairly. Unfairness and arbitrariness are akin to violation of the principles of natural justice. In this case, the Government policy of granting compassionate appointment had been duly not followed, in spite of various authoritative pronouncements, which are unambiguous that the same will apply to all present, past and future cases, supporting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.
39. One thing to be noticed in this case is that on a perusal of the impugned order, it is not known as to whether the petitioner had been duly heard in person before-ever passing the impugned order, in spite of the fact he substantiated his claim based on necessary Certificate(s) from the competent authority as also the Civil Court decree declaring his legal heir status.
40. In this case, in spite of relevant GOs/clarification letter of the State, the respondents failed to frame appropriate Rule in protecting the interest of the claimant for compassionate appointment, in unambiguous terms. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the first respondent in the impugned order for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, cannot be sustained, as it is legally infirmed.
41. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed, with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment, taking into consideration the Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai, dated 29.11.2011 and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
2011 ( December Part)judis.nic.in/judis_chennai/filename=34600
As the petitioner's father Vadivel (deceased) was a Class IV employee in the second respondent-Panchayat Union, on a regular appointment and had died in harness on 2.10.1995, the petitioner is entitled to get appointment on compassionate grounds.
(f) Due to the sudden demise of the petitioner's father, the entire family was stranded on the streets in the midst of lengthy litigation, and only after the decree of the Civil Court in the said suit, the petitioner was able to obtain the following certificates:
(i) Conduct Certificate;
(ii) Death Certificate of the deceased Vadivel (petitioner's father);
(iii) Tahsildar Certificate of the death of Vadivel in harness;
(iv) Tahsildar Certificate about the properties held by the deceased and the source of income;
(v) The Certificate issued by the Tahsildar that the deceased Vadivel's widow was not re-married and
(vi) The Certificate issued by the Tahsildar about the family status of the petitioner.
(g) After getting the necessary certificates, on 14.2.2007, the petitioner applied to the first respondent-District Collector for appointment on compassionate grounds due to the death of his father.
The District Collector however passed the order on 2.1.2008, rejecting the application on compassionate grounds, on the sole ground that the application for appointment on compassionate grounds, was made after three years from the date of the death of the petitioner's father on 2.10.1995. =
When it is the consistent policy of the State to give compassionate appointment to any one of the heirs of the deceased Government servant who dies in harness, in this case, the first respondent/District Collector has outrightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that it was belated, though the said claim was not with any inordinate delay and that too it was neither wilful nor wanton, which had been duly explained by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the Court, by supporting material documents in the typed set of papers filed along with the Writ Petition.
The whole delay was due to the fact that the petitioner approached the Civil Court for getting declared his status so also the Revenue authorities for necessary Certificates, as a matter of policy, to prove his claim for compassionate appointment. In such a position, it is the duty of the respondents to ensure that the petitioner's expectations are fulfilled "mutatis-mutandis" the Government policies and its Departments, in administering the affairs of the country, are expected to honour their statements of policy or intention. The policy statement cannot be disregarded unfairly. Unfairness and arbitrariness are akin to violation of the principles of natural justice. In this case, the Government policy of granting compassionate appointment had been duly not followed, in spite of various authoritative pronouncements, which are unambiguous that the same will apply to all present, past and future cases, supporting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.
39. One thing to be noticed in this case is that on a perusal of the impugned order, it is not known as to whether the petitioner had been duly heard in person before-ever passing the impugned order, in spite of the fact he substantiated his claim based on necessary Certificate(s) from the competent authority as also the Civil Court decree declaring his legal heir status.
40. In this case, in spite of relevant GOs/clarification letter of the State, the respondents failed to frame appropriate Rule in protecting the interest of the claimant for compassionate appointment, in unambiguous terms. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the first respondent in the impugned order for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, cannot be sustained, as it is legally infirmed.
41. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed, with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment, taking into consideration the Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai, dated 29.11.2011 and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
2011 ( December Part)judis.nic.in/judis_chennai/filename=34600
