LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT & ANR versus M. SELVANAYAGAM @ KUMARAVELU

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 244 · Decided: 05-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 4 S.C.R. 244 
A 
LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT & ANR. 
B 
v. 
M. SELVANAYAGAM @ KUMARAVELU · 
(Civil Appeal No(s) 2206 of 2006) 
APRIL 5. 2011 
[AFTAB ALAM AND R. M. LODHA, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW: 
c 
Compassionate appointment - Son of deceased 
employee applying for appointment after 7M years of the 
death of his father after he attained majority - Wife of 
deceased never applied for appointment - Held: In such a 
case, the appointment cannot be said to sub-serve the basic 
0 object and purpose of the scheme - It would rather appear 
that on attaining majorit!', the applicant staked his claim on 
the basis that his father was an employee of the Municipality 
and he had died while in service - In the facts of the case, 
the claim of the appellant did not come under the scheme of 
E compassionate appointments - An appointment made many 
years after the death of the employee or without due 
consideration of the financial resources available to his/her 
dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the 
dependents as a result of his death, simply because the 
claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the 
F deceased employee, would be directly in conflict with Articles 
14 and 16 of the Constitution and, therefore, quite bad and 
illegal - In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, 
it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind - Constitution 
G 
of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16. 
The father of the respondent died while In service of 
the appellanf Municipality. The respondent was a minor 
I 
at that time and his mother did not apply for the 
appointment. On attaining the age of majority he filed the 
H 
244 
LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT v. M. 
245 
SELVANAYAGAM @ KUMARAVELU 
application, which was after 7% years of the death of his 
A 
father. The employers declined the appointment. His writ 
petition was dismissed by the Single Judge, but allowed 
by the Division Bench of the High Court with a direction 
to the employers to appoint him within three months. 
B 
Allowing the appeal filed by the employers, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the order dated April 19, 2000, two 
reasons were assigned for rejecting the respondent's 
claim for appointment on compassionate basis. First, on 
the death of the employee, his wife and the mother of the C 
respondent did not make any request for appointment 
and this showed that the demise of the employee 
concerned had not caused a very serious financial crisis 
in the family. Secondly, following the death of the 
employee, the family was given Rs.26,674/- as terminal D 
benefits besides family pension to the widow. T,hus, the 
dependents of the deceased employee were not left/ 
completely without any financial resources. The second 
reason given for not accepting the respgndent's claim 
was rightly rejected by the Division Bench of the High 
E 
Court. [para 5-6] [249-A-E] 
· 
Balbir Kaur and another vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. 
and others, 2000 (3) SCR 1053 =AIR 2000 SC 1596 - relied 
on. 
1.2; However, the view taken by the Division Bench 
of the High Court on the first Issue Is completely divorced 
from the object and purpose of the scheme of 
compassionate appointments. The High Court accepted 
F 
the respondent's explanation for her mother not applying 
G 
for a job and held that It could not be a ground for denying 
appointment to him on compassionate basis. The 
explanation that his mother was suffering from anemia 
and hypo tension is an afterthought and completely 
unacceptable. It has been said a number of times earlier H 
:~·:. 
. 
. 
. 
I 
246 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2011] 4 S.C.R. 
A but it needs to be recalled here that an appointment 
made many years after the death of the employee or 
without due consideration of the financial resources 
available to his/her dependents and the financial 
deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his 
B death, simply because the claimant happened to be one 
of the dependents of the deceased employee, would be 
directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the 
Constitution and, therefore, quite bad and illegal. In 
dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is 
c imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind. [para 6-7) [249-
E-F; 250-F-H; 251-A-B] 
1.3. Ideally, the appointment on compassionate basis 
should be made without any loss of time but having 
regard to the delays in the administrative process and 
D several other relevant factors such as the number of 
already pending c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.