DIRECTOR OF TOWN PANCHAYAT Vs. M. JAYABAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of eight appeals which arise out of a common judgment[dtd. 3/7/2018 in W.A.Nos.778 and 779 of 2017] of the High Court[ High Court of Judicature at Madras] and order[dtd. 31/1/2023 in Review Application Nos.69 and 70 of 2022] passed in the subsequent review applications.

(2.) Aggrieved against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, the present appeals have been filed. The High Court vide impugned judgment has directed that the respondents herein be given appointment on the post of Junior Assistant. They were initially appointed as sweepers on compassionate basis. The impugned judgment upheld the order of the learned Single Judge, who vide judgment dtd. 7/10/2016 passed in W.P Nos. 16758-16759 of 2015, directed the appellants to issue suitable orders for their appointment as Junior Assistants. They were also held entitled to receive salary for the post of a Junior Assistant from the date of the order. The respondents herein, on account of death of their fathers, who were working as sweepers, were initially granted appointment on compassionate basis as sweepers. It was in terms of the applications made by them. After huge delay, they preferred writ petitions claiming appointment to a higher post namely Junior Assistant raising the plea that they were qualified for the same at the time of the initial appointment. Learned Single Judge allowed the claim. The order was then upheld by the Division Bench and the applications for review were also dismissed. The aforesaid orders are under challenge in the present appeals.

(3.) Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the impugned judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside on more than one grounds. He submitted that appointment on compassionate basis is not a matter of right rather a concession given to the family members of a deceased employee to enable them to come out of sudden financial crisis. Once a dependent family member of a deceased has been offered appointment on a particular post and he has accepted the same, he cannot, later on, turn around and claim that he is entitled to a higher post on account of his better qualifications. At that stage the family cannot be said to be in financial crisis. Even otherwise, option once exercised by the family member of the deceased employee cannot be allowed to be exercised again once the earlier option fructified into employment to a post on which the person concerned had joined and had been working.