Revisit compassionate appointment scheme: HC

Judge SM Subramaniam, while reiterating that appointment on compassionate grounds is only a concession and hence does not create a vested right in the claimant’s favour, said, “Mere death of a government employee in his harness, does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The competent authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee. Only if it is satisfied that without providing employment the family will be unable to meet the crisis, a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family of the deceased employee.”

Also, holding that the scope of compassionate appointment is to be restricted to the terms and conditions of scheme itself and the same cannot be stretched further by the courts, the judge said, “The legal principles in this regard are repeatedly settled by this court in many number of judgments. Despite that, the government has so far not issued consolidated instructions enabling the subordinate authorities to follow the rules constitutionally and uniformly to avoid discrimination.”

Further, observing that a compassionate appointment is justified when it is granted to provide immediate succor to the family of the deceased employee and that such appointment cannot be granted after a reasonable period, Justice Subramaniam said, “Thus, the very scheme is to save the family and not to provide one appointment to one legal heir of the deceased employee. Therefore, the indigent circumstances, the lifestyle, other sources of income including the quantum of family pension, terminal benefits and retirement benefits received are all to be thoroughly ascertained by the competent authorities while evaluating the indigent circumstances of the family of the deceased employee.”

Based on this, the judge sought the Chief Secretary to incorporate a clause in the instructions that in the event of any violation of the consolidated instructions, disciplinary actions will be taken against all such officials responsible for any illegality in implementing the scheme of compassionate appointment. Granting eight weeks to comply with the order, the judge then posted the case to July 27 for reporting compliance. Justice Subramaniam offered the direction while disposing a plea moved by one Bharani Sakthi challenging the order passed by the Director of School Education rejecting her plea for compassionate appointment.