Compassionate appointment not a right: Madras HC

Job scheme not a means of employment, its aim is to help families tide over immediate financial crisis, says HC

Published: 26th June 2022 05:48 AM  |   Last Updated: 26th June 2022 05:48 AM   |  A+A-

Madras High Court (File photo)

Madras High Court (File photo)

By Express News Service

CHENNAI: A division bench of the Madras High Court has said the objective of providing employment on compassionate grounds to a dependant of a government employee who died in harness was to help the family tide over the financial crisis, not as a means of giving employment.

Justices S Vaidyanathan and N Mala recently made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) against a single judge’s order to provide employment on compassionate grounds to the family member of a staff despite a long delay in submitting the application. 

It is now well settled that there is no vested right to compassionate appointment. “It is also well settled that the object behind appointment on compassionate grounds is to enable the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis... and not to provide employment on the mere death of the employee,” the bench said, quoting several related judgments.

The single judge’s order, dated August 25, 2021, was in favour of A Chindamani, whose husband died in 1994. She had claimed that the authorities did not consider an application for employment that she filed in 1998 and another one in 2009, seeking employment for her son as he had become a major then.

The appellants, however, refuted her claim of submitting an application in 1998 and rejected the application filed in 2009 on the basis of ‘limitation’ (time limit).The judges concurred with the contention of the appellants that though the respondent claimed to have submitted the application in 1998, she failed to produce any document to substantiate it. They also found that the single judge had failed to discuss the delay.

Failed to produce documents
The judges concurred with the contention of the appellants that though the respondent claimed to have submitted the application in 1998, she failed to produce any document to substantiate it. They also found that the single judge had failed to discuss the delay



Comments

Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp