Reconsider compassionate appointment: HC

Setting aside a single judge’s order rejecting the woman’s application for compassionate appointment, the first bench comprising Chief Justice AP Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad said it was incumbent on the DEEO to consider as to whether the penurious circumstances of the petitioner’s family continued or not.

“We are therefore inclined to allow the appeal setting aside the order dated October 30, 2018, and send the matter back to the DEEO, Dharmapuri, to consider as to whether the penurious circumstances in which the family was placed on the death of M Munusamy continued or not, and pass orders within six weeks,” the bench said.

As per the case, Munusamy, who joined as Secondary Grade Teacher in Mittareddihalli Panchayat School, Nallampalli, Dharmapuri, died in harness on February 28, 2005. His elder son M Sangusamy filed an application seeking compassionate appointment on December 20, 2006. But on December 16, 2009, he too died, by which time his application remained undecided.

Then the petitioner, M Namadeva, filed an application seeking compassionate appointment. But on November 03, 2013, the application was rejected on the ground that there are no provisions in the scheme for alternative legal heir.

When she moved the court, the single judge held that the application filed after about 13 years from the date of death of her father cannot be considered. The judge quoted several judgments and concluded that the DEEO was correct in rejecting the application on the ground that there was no provision to entertain the second application.

However, the bench said Namadeva’s brother had given his application for appointment on compassionate basis on December 20, 2006 itself. But it was kept pending. As the brother died, nobody in the family availed the benefit.

It was well settled that the purpose and object of the scheme was to mitigate hardship arising out of the demise of the government employee, said the bench, adding that there was no reason given the government as to why the brother’s application was kept pending for almost three years.

It has been held by courts that two applications for compassionate appointment can be entertained if the first has been pending. In the present instance, the application filed by the brother was kept pending and, on his death, the second application was filed. It can therefore be considered a continuation of the previous application, the bench said.