Compassionate benefit should be extended to deserving heirs: HC

Compassionate benefit should be extended to deserving heirs: HC

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court was hearing the appeal preferred by V. Balamurugan, whose father was appointed as a sweeper in Bodikamanvadi in Athoor in 1993. 

The court perused the original Service Register of the appellant’s father and observed that his appointment order

did not indicate that he was appointed to a temporary post and it only stated that his monthly salary was fixed at ₹170

The Hindu Bureau  MADURAI  11.10.2024

“No doubt, compassionate appointment cannot be considered a bounty. At the same time, the benefit should be extended to the deserving heirs of individuals who had served the government,” observed the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court while directing the State to provide employment on compassionate grounds to a man whose father had served the government as a sweeper for 26 years.

The court was hearing the appeal preferred in 2022 by V. Balamurugan of Dindigul district, whose father P. Veeraiyan was appointed as a sweeper in Bodikamanvadi in Athoor in 1993 on a consolidated monthly pay of ₹170, and he served till his death in 2019.

He was brought under the special time scale of pay as per a G.O. with effect from 2013. The appellant sought employment on compassionate grounds. The claim was rejected in 2021 on the grounds that his father’s services were not regularised and he was not placed on a regular time scale of pay.

The rejection order was challenged before a Single Bench of the court, which had held that compassionate appointment was not a bounty that could be granted merely for the asking. Challenging the order, the appeal was filed.

A Division Bench of Justices R. Subramanian and L. Victoria Gowri perused the original Service Register of the appellant’s father and observed that his appointment order did not indicate that he was appointed to a temporary post and it only stated that his salary was fixed at ₹170. The court took into account that he had served in that capacity without any break for a period of at least 26 years till his death.

The court observed that the post of sweeper was governed by the Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules, which enumerated 86 categories of posts as basic service. While considering the issue relating to the regularisation of government servants, a Full Bench of the court had held that the appointment of temporary employees to posts in the Tamil Nadu Basic Service itself was improper.

The Full Bench had held that if the appointment was made to any of the 86 categories of posts, whether part time or full time, the employees would be entitled to regularisation, the court observed.

The court observed that persons who were working as sweepers in the panchayats were placed under a special time scale of pay with the intention of regularising their services. Hence, sweepers granted a special time scale of pay should be considered regular employees for all practical purposes and they would be entitled to the benefits available to regular employees, the court observed and allowed the appeal.