WA/3506/2023 of THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU Vs G.PADMANABAN on 1 September 2026

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam, J.) The State preferred this present intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, challenging the writ order dated 13.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.22032 of 2015.

2. The respondent / writ petitioner is the son of Late R.Gunasekaran, who served as Assistant Section Officer in the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and died on 03.11.1995 while he was in service. At the time of death of the deceased employee, the respondent was minor and 12 years old. The mother of the respondent submitted an application on 11.05.1996 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds to her son / respondent. However, the said application was not considered. On attaining the age of majority, the respondent again submitted an application on 19.05.2006 seeking appointment on compassionate grounts. The said application was rejected on the ground that the respondent was aged 12 years at the time of death of the deceased employee / father and the application submitted beyond three years cannot be considered, in view of the conditions stipulated under the scheme of compassionate appointment.

3. The respondent filed a writ petition and the same was allowed by this Court on the ground that the mother of the respondent, made an application in time. Such a ground raised is not in consonance with the terms and conditions of the scheme of compassionate appointment.

4. The application has to be submitted within a period of three years from the date of death of the deceased employee. Such an application must be filed only by an eligible legal heir / legal representative of the deceased employee. The family must also be in indigent circumstances due to the death of the deceased employee. These all are the relevant considerations for providing appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the eligibility criteria must also be scrupulously followed while considering an application for appointment on compassionate grounds.

5. The wider constitutional ramifications and implications of the special scheme of compassionate appointment require consideration by this Court.

6. The scheme of compassionate appointment is a concession and not a constitutional scheme of appointment. Compassion can never be claimed as an absolute right. Thus, the scheme is to be implemented scrupulously in terms and conditions stipulated. Let us examine the effects and ill-effects of the non- constitutional, concessional scheme of appointments like compassionate appointments.

7. The effect of compassionate appointment in one angle, is that the family, who lost the breadwinner is able to secure a job under the compassionate appointment and lead their livelihood peacefully. The very object of the scheme is to mitigate the circumstances arising out of sudden death of an employee. Therefore, the relevant consideration would be that the family should not be in a position to maintain themselves and the income of the breadwinner alone was the protector of the family.

8. If the family is able to lead their livelihood in the absence of the income earned by the breadwinner, then such family may not be eligible to secure employment on compassionate grounds. If this criteria is diluted, then the very scheme of compassionate appointment and its objectives are defeated. This is exactly the reason why extra- constitutional schemes of special appointments are given in a restricted manner so as to ensure only deserving families get the benefits and the scheme is not misused or abused so as to deprive the meritorious candidates of securing employment.

9. The ill-effects of this scheme are to be considered in a constitutional perspective. Equal employment in public employment is a constitutional mandate. Social justice is the philosophy enunciated under the constitution and is to be achieved by the State to ensure that every citizen gets equal opportunity in public employment. All public appointments are to be made under the constitutional scheme of appointments. Lakhs and lakhs of youth of our great Nation are longing to secure public employment through an open competitive process. They are working hard and awaiting recruitment notification from the Public Service Commissions and the Government. Many citizens in remote areas of our Country are first time graduates and are waiting for such employment notification to secure public employment, which they consider as a status in the society. Depriving those meritorious candidates of securing employment on merits and through reservation is unconstitutional. Therefore, the scheme of compassionate appointment itself is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Under the scheme, no merit assessment has been made, no reservation is followed, eligibility criteria is not followed and death alone is the criteria to provide public employment. Therefore, the scheme is to be implemented in a restricted manner.

10. Article 335 of the Constitution of India denotes claims of Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes to service and posts. The said Article enumerates that “the claims of the members of the Scheduled Tribes / Scheduled Castes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State”.

11. The constitution mandates even while providing public appointments to the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe candidates, maintenance of efficiency of administration in making of such appointments is of paramount importance. That being the spirit of constitution, the scheme of compassionate appointment, if leading to an inefficiency in public administration, the scheme is to be revisited by the States and the Union so as to ensure the most deserving family alone has been provided with compassionate appointment in a restricted manner to protect the basic rights of the meritorious candidates, including the Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes candidates, who are all aspiring to secure public employment through the constitutional scheme of appointments.

12. The scheme of compassionate appointment is a special consideration extended to the families of the deceased employee mostly on sympathy grounds and also to protect their livelihood. Therefore, the scheme must act in its real objective and not to provide one appointment to the legal heirs of the deceased employee. However, in recent times, the scheme has been misconstrued or misinterpreted so as to secure public employment through this concessional scheme of appointments.

Unless such attempts are thwarted, the very spirit of constitutional scheme of appointments are under threat.

13. The State has to ensure equal opportunity in public employment and social justice, as mandated to protect the rule of reservation for the socially backward and downtrodden communities. Any extended scheme of concessional appointments, undoubtedly would deprive the opportunities of weaker section in the society and thereby offending the principles of social justice as mandated under the constitution.

14. The Courts are not expected to approach such issues on misplaced sympathy. The Court though considered such cases on individual facts, it is the duty bound to assess the mitigating factors so as to strike a balance and ensure that the constitutional mandates and rights of citizens in the society to secure public employment are protected and preserved. Therefore, the Courts are not expected to be carried away by misplaced sympathy on the ground that an employee died and therefore, give appointment to the legal heirs. The penurious circumstances prevailing in the family are of paramount importance for extending the scheme of compassionate appointment. Any routine orders passed by the Courts would not only offend the constitution but deny employment opportunity to meritorious candidates, who are all waiting for public employment.

15. The Courts, while considering the effects of compassionate appointment, are expected to equally consider the ill- effects and strike a balance and adopt a pragmatic approach to ensure that the scheme is employed properly. In the event of the scheme causing infringement of the rights of the citizen, then the State is expected to revisit the scheme to bring appropriate conditions so as to ensure that the constitutional protection given to the citizens are preserved.

16. In view of the fact that the order of the Writ Court is not in consonance with the settled legal position governing appointment on compassionate grounds, and considering that 31 years have lapsed from the date of death of the deceased employee, the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, at this length of time, deserves no consideration. Thus, the efflux of time is also a ground to draw an inference that the penurious circumstances, if any, which existed at the time of the death of the deceased employee, cannot be taken into consideration, after the lapse of many years.

17. Accordingly, the writ order dated 03.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.22032 of 2015 is set aside and the writ appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [S.M.S., J.] [K.G.R., J.]

01.09.2026 Index : Yes Speaking Order : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes TK To

1. The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (OP.1) Department Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Joint Secretary to Government Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (OP.1) Department Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. TK

W.A.NO.3506 OF 2023 01.09.2026