BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25/09/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU WRIT PETITION (MD) Nos.1536 of 2006 WRIT PETITION (MD) Nos.1566, 1749, 1842, 1843, 1844, 1870, 1897, 1898, 1911, 1951 to 1955 of 2006 W.P.(MD)No.1536 of 2006 A.Karuppaiah .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Director General, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Ordinance Factory Board, 10-A, S.K.Bose Road, Kolkatta - 700 001. 2.The General Manager, Ordinance Factory, Trichy - 16. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in respect of order passed by
2nd respondent in No.7714/LB/MBO dt. 28.7.2001 and quash the same.
W.P.(MD)No.1566 and 1844 of 2006
Smt.V.Indrani .. Petitioner in W.P.
(MD)No.1566 of 2006
Smt.R.Vijayalakshmi .. Petitioner in W.P.
(MD)No.1844 of 2006
vs.
1.The Director General,
Government of India,
Ministry of Defence,
Ordinance Factory Board,
10-A, S.K.Bose Road,
Kolkatta - 700 001.
2.The General Manager,
Government of India,
Ministry of Defence,
Ordinance Factory,
Trichy - 16. .. Respondents
Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in respect of order passed by
2nd respondent in No.7714/LB/DIH dt. 28.7.2001 and quash the same.
W.P.(MD)No.1749,1842, 1843, 1870, 1897 of 2006,
Smt.S.Ramu .. Petitioner in W.P.
(MD)No.1749 of 2006
Smt.S.Radha .. Petitioner in W.P.
(MD)No.1842 of 2006
Smt.J.Juliet .. Petitioner in W.P.
(MD)No.1843 of 2006
Smt.P.Kulanthai Therasal .. Petitioner in W.P.
(MD)No.1870 of 2006
R.Sambandan .. Petitioner in W.P.
(MD)No.1897 of 2006
vs.
1.The Director General,
Ministry of Defence,
Ordinance Factory Board,
10-A, S.K.Bose Road,
Kolkatta - 700 001.
2.The General Manager,
Ministry of Defence
Ordinance Factory,
Trichy - 16. .. Respondents
Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in respect of order passed by
2nd respondent in No.7714/LB/DIH dt. 28.7.2001 and quash the same.
W.P.(MD)Nos.1898, 1911, 1951, 1952,
1953, 1954 and 1955 of 2006
K.Munusamy .. Petitioner in W.P.
(MD)No.1898 of 2006
K.Karuppasamy .. Petitioner in W.P.
(MD)No.1911 of 2006
K.Sonai .. Petitioner in W.P.
(MD)No.1951 of 2006
A.E.Reeta .. Petitioner in W.P.
(MD)No.1952 of 2006
P.Selvaraj .. Petitioner in W.P.
(MD)No.1953 of 2006
M.Gunaseelan .. Petitioner in W.P.
(MD)No.1954 of 2006
M.Kannan .. Petitioner in W.P.
(MD)No.1955 of 2006
vs.
1.The Director General,
Ordinance Factory Board,
Ministry of Defence,
10-A, S.K.Bose Road,
Kolkatta - 700 001.
2.The General Manager,
Ordinance Factory,
Ministry of Defence
Trichy - 16. .. Respondents
Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in respect of order passed by
2nd respondent in No.7714/LB/MBO dt. 28.7.2001 and quash the same.
!For petitioners ... Mr. M.Subash Babu
^For respondents ... Mr.P.Subbaraj
Central Government Counsel
:COMMON ORDER
In all these 15 Writ Petitions, the petitioners are all wait listed
persons kept in the list of persons eligible for employment assistance on
account of the death of their near relative in harness while working the
employment of the second respondent factory. Since during the wait period,
their turn for employment never arose, by the impugned order, they were informed
that there was remote possibility of their getting employment as the list had
lapsed. They were also further informed that the family pension, terminal
benefits were received from the factory was substantial, there was no
necessity to grant any employment assistance on compassionate grounds. It is
this order, which is under challenge.
2. All these Writ Petitions was admitted on 16.2.2006. The respondents
have also filed counter affidavits. In each of the counter affidavit, the
second respondent had stated the details of the family members of the deceased
workman as well as the quantum of the benefits available to the family on
account of the death of their near relative and stated that they are not
entitled for any compassionate appointment and that the wait period was also
over. In the counter affidavit, heavy reliance was also placed on the circular
issued by the Department of Personnel and Public Grievance and Pensions,
Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) vide letter dated 5th May 2003 in
ref F.No.14014/19/2002 Estt(D). In the light of the same, it was stated that
the request of the petitioners cannot be considered.
3. Heard the arguments of Mr. M.Subash Babu, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned Central Government Counsel and have
perused the records.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the orders have
been passed in stereo- typed letter and on that short ground, those orders are
liable to be set aside. It was pointed out to him that the counter-affidavits
filed by the second respondent contained detailed reasoning for the rejection of
the petitioners’ request. The learned counsel took time to refute those details
but the same was not forthcoming.
5. In this context, it is necessary to refer to certain decisions of the
Supreme Court on this issue. The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision in
State of Haryana Vs.Ankur Gupta reported in 2003(7) SCC 704 in para 6 held as
follows:-
“As was observed in State of Haryana v.Rani Devi (AIR 1996 SCW 3002)it
need not be pointed out that the claim of the person concerned for appointment
on compassionate ground is based on the premise that he was dependent on the
deceased employee. Strictly, this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of
Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is
considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring
in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in
service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules,
regulations or to issue such administrative orders which can stand the test of
Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a
matter of right. Die-in-Harness Scheme cannot be made applicable to all types
of posts irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the deceased
employee. In Rani Devi case it was held that the scheme regarding appointment
on compassionate ground if extended to all types of casual or ad hoc
employees including those who worked as apprentices cannot be justified on
constitutional grounds. In LIC of India v. Asha Ramachandra Ambekar, (AIR 1994
SCW 1947) it was pointed out that the High courts and Administrative Tribunals
can not confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make
appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect
thereof do not cover and contemplate such appointments. It was noted in Umesh
Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (AIR 1994 (4) SCC 138) that as a rule, in
public service appointments should be made strictly on the basis of open
invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground
is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid
requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee
while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such
cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis.
But such appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with
the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration
the financial condition of the family of the deceased.” [Emphasis Added]
6. In fact, when a similar order based the circular of the D.O.P.T, when
questioned, this Court in W.P.(MD)No.11047 of 2005 [K.Krishnamoorthi v. The
Station Director, All India Radio, Chennai and another], by an order dated
11.7.2007 rejected the said contention and it was held as follows in paragraph
6:
“6. It is held that the appointment on compassionate aground is an
exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and not a new
source of recruitment. The Court can only enforce the Rules, which are in
conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. When the
Government had framed the Rule including prescription of time limit, the Court
out of any sympathy cannot expand the scope of the Rule.”
7. In fact, the very same circular of the D.O.P.T was challenged in the
case of Sivanantha Perumal, President, Tuticorin Port Deceased Employees
Dependants Welfare Society Vs. Union of India and others vide W.P.NO.2269 of
2006 and the DOPT circular was upheld by judgment dated 17.9.2007. In para 3 of
the judgment, it was observed as follows:
“3. Under the impugned circular of the Central Government issued by the
D.O.P.T dt.5.5.2003 a time limit for consideration of the cases relating to
employment assistance programme was fixed and all public sector Boards were
asked to adhere to the same. This is in accordance with the constitutional
scheme in the matter of employment assistance and it cannot be attacked on
grounds of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.”
8. In the present case, the respondents have considered the claim of the
petitioners and also kept them in the waiting list against the quota meant for
the employment assistance programme, when the same did not materialise within a
reasonable period, their request was rejected by this Court. It has also been
satisfactorily explained the in the counter affidavit. Hence, no case is made
out by the petitioners to interfere with the impugned order. All the writ
Petitions are dismissed. No costs.
asvm
To
1.The Director General,
Government of India,
Ministry of Defence,
Ordinance Factory Board,
10-A, S.K.Bose Road,
Kolkatta – 700 001.
2.The General Manager,
Government of India,
Ministry of Defence,
Ordinance Factory,
Trichy – 16.