P AZHAGAR Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of rejection dated 13.01.2011 in relation to the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner strenuously contended that the mother of the writ petitioner Late Smt.Pandiammal, was employed as a Sanitary Worker and passed away on 08.05.2010, while she was in service. The writ petitioner had submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment immediately after the demise of his mother on 23.06.2010, the same was rejected by the first respondent in proceedings dated 13.01.2011, stating that the petitioner was overaged. Even, at the time of death of the deceased employee, the writ petitioner had completed 42 years of age, thus, the claim of the writ petitioner had been negatived. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that there are certain Government letters in respect of age relaxation. Therefore, the writ petitioner has also to be provided with the benefit of the Government instructions. Further, the learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court that certain orders were passed by this Court, considering the similar issues and appointments were granted on compassionate ground, even after crossing the maximum age limit fixed under the rules.

(3.) At the outset, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner pleaded that the age relaxation has to be granted to the writ petitioner. However, this Court is not inclined to dilute the recruitment rules in force. The scheme of compassionate appointment being a concession, it has to be implemented strictly by following the terms and conditions stipulated. There may not be any dilution or expansion in respect of the rules in force. Equal opportunity in public employment, is the Constitutional mandate and Constitutional perspectives. The silence of Constitution also has to be taken note of, while interpreting such subject and concessional schemes. The equality clause enunciated in the Constitution has to be followed in its letter and spirit. Certain silent areas ought to be culled out by the Constitutional Courts by interpreting the terms and conditions of the scheme. While doing so, the larger interest of the society has to be taken note of. While granting the reliefs, the Courts ought to consider various social and other factors to suit the current changed situation prevailing in the society. Undoubtably, when the scheme of compassionate appointment was introduced probably there were limited number of claims. Thus, the Courts and the Government were lenient in providing appointment on compassionate ground. However, the current day situation is entirely different and there are a large number of deaths of Government servants in service. Thus, it may not be possible to provide appointment in all the cases. This apart, now the quantum of salary provided to the Government employees are certainly decent and enough to meet out the current day expenditures. This apart, the legal- heirs are getting terminal and pensionary benefits so also the family pension. This Court has to consider the millions of educated youth of this great nation, who are boiling their mid night lamps, aspiring to secure the public employment by participating in the open competitive process. Therefore, the Constitution warrants, the constitutional Courts to see and interpret the silence in the constitution. Though it is not expressly stated this Court has to consider the prevailing situation in the society, in this view of the matter, the age limit prescribed to provide compassionate appointment has to be scrupulously followed and there cannot be any dilution or violation. The rule of relaxation cannot be exercised in a routine manner.