M PANCHAMIRTHAM Vs. REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of Mr. L. Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. P.H. Arvindh Pandian, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5 and have perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioners are wife and son of late K. Muthu. THE said Muthu, who was working as Senior Gang Man in the Southern Railways, got medically incapacitated on 30.5.1990 and later, he died on 24.01.1995. THE said Muthu submitted a representation for appointment of his son, who is the second petitioner, on compassionate ground. At that time, the second petitioner was a minor.

(3.) IN State of Haryana and others v. Rani Devi and another [1996 (5) SCC 308], the Supreme Court while examining the object of compassionate appointment pointed out that the claim of the person concerned for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premise that he was a dependant of the deceased employee. Strictly this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of INdia. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative orders which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right.