Chennai: Plea rejected for job on compassionate ground

DECCAN CHRONICLE.

PublishedNov 25, 2018, 6:08 am IST

The bench said a compassionate appointment was not a matter of course but only subject to the rules and regulations governed.

Madras high court

Chennai: Pointing out that the inability to cure would depend upon the stage of the disease and not the disease by itself, the Madras high court has dismissed a petition from a son seeking compassionate appointment on the ground that his father had contracted tuberculosis disease during the course of employment, retired later and died.

A division bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Krishnan Ramasamy dismissed the petition filed by M.Velish Kumar, which sought a direction to Southern Railway to issue an appointment order to him on compassionate ground.The petitioner's father was suffering from tuberculosis. He gave a representation prior to his retirement seeking to declare himself as unfit to work any longer and consequently a request was made for compassionate appointment to the petitioner. However, he continued to serve thereafter and reached the age of superannuation. Two years thereafter, the petitioner had requested the Southern Railway to appoint him on compassionate grounds. The request was rejected holding that the petitioner’s father was not so crippled and therefore, the petitioner cannot be given any appointment on compassionate ground, more so, when he reached the age of superannuation and retired from service. Hence, the petitioner filed the present petition.Counsel for the petitioner submitted that tuberculosis by its own nature was a deadly disease, for which, there was no cure. The petitioner’s father contracted the disease during the course of employment and therefore, he cannot be treated as suffering from partially crippling disease. His case would come under complete crippling to the extent of creating an inability to work, he added.

P.T.Ramkumar, counsel for Southern Railway, submitted that the petitioner's father completed his tenure. There was no material to show that he was so crippled. In fact, salary was paid to him for the services rendered by him, he added.

The bench said a compassionate appointment was not a matter of course but only subject to the rules and regulations governed. Admittedly, the petitioner’s father completed his period of service and worked up to the age of 60 years. Thereafter, he reached the age of superannuation and died. There was no material to hold that he was so crippled leading to inability to work. If that was a case, the petitioner's father himself would have taken up the issue while he was alive. If the petitioner's case was to be treated as one coming under partially medically de-categorized employee, there was a mandatory requirement of five years of service was required before such a request was made. Admittedly, there was no such compliance. "Thus, looking from any perspective, we do not find any merit in the petition. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner on the nature of disease also cannot be accepted. The inability to cure would depend upon the stage of the disease and not the disease by itself", the bench added.