Madras High Court imposes Rs 1 lakh costs for 15-year-delay in processing compassionate appointment claim

A delay of fifteen years in "leisurely" processing and, ultimately, rejecting an application for employment on compassionate grounds recently drew the ire of the Madras High Court (T Aruljothi v. The Director of School Education and others).The Court imposed Rs 1 lakh as costs on the officials responsible for dealing with the application in a "callous manner", noting that the concerned authorities miserably failed to discharge their duties within a reasonable time, thereby causing the claimant mental agony,.Justice R Mahadevan found that the authorities acted in a clandestine manner only to reject the claim after a long period of 15 years.."This Court is of the view that such a cavalier approach of the officials concerned in discharging their statutory duties, would dent the societal interest and the same has to be seriously viewed", he observed..The Court ordered that the Rs 1 lakh costs be recovered from the salaries of the officials concerned to be paid to the petitioner (aggrieved claimant). These recovery proceedings are to be concluded within six months from the date of receiving the order copy, the Court added. .The claim in question had been made by the daughter of one, M Tamilarasu who died in 1998. At the time of his death, he was a PG Assistant at the Government Higher Secondary School, Kumaralingam. .His wife initially made an application urging that his son be granted employment on compassionate grounds. This application was rejected by the District Educational Officer, Pollachi in 2000, stating that the first legal heir (the son) ought to have made the application..Thereafter, in 2001, Tamilarasu's wife made another application, this time on behalf of her second daughter, since her first daughter was already married. Finding no response, a representation was also sent to the Chief Minister's Speciall Cell, Chennai. In response, she was informed in 2004 that the application was still pending due to certain reasons. .It was only in 2016 that the District Educational Officer, Tiruppur rejected the application, stating that an alternative application could not be considered (since an application had already been made on behalf of Tamilarasu's son). Aggrieved, the second daughter moved the High Court for relief. .Disagreeing with the rejection of the claim, the Court observed, "The provisions of the Scheme are very clear that if the first legal heir of the Government servant is not willing / not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground on account of not possessing the required educational qualification or ill-health, etc., another legal heir of the deceased Government servant can apply for such appointment, subject to conditions prescribed for compassionate ground appointment.".Both applications moved for compassionate appointment were also well within the limitation period of three years when they were made, the Court further noted. .The Court concluded that the course adopted by the authorities could not be countenanced and requires interference. .Justice Mahadevan reiterated that "compassionate appointment is intended to protect the family of the deceased from the sudden financial crisis and provide for livelihood thereby enabling the family to move on from the indigent circumstances.".He also pointed out that the Supreme Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Nanak Chand has held that such matters should not be delayed. .The Court, therefore, set aside the rejection of the claim and remanded the matter back to the concerned authorities for fresh consideration in line with latest Government Order passed in 2020. .The Court further directed the authorities to consider the claim within eight weeks of receiving a copy of the order. .Advocate K Selvaraj appeared for the petitioner, whereas government advocate V Annalakshmi appeared for the respondents.