Madras High Court
P.Kasthuri vs The Chief Engineer (Personnel) on 3 December, 2015
Author: N.Kirubakaran
Bench: V.Ramasubramanian, N.Kirubakaran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.12.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
W.A.(MD)No.792 of 2011
P.Kasthuri ... Appellant/
Writ Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chief Engineer (Personnel),
VIII Floor, 800 KRR Maligai,
Annasalai, Chennai - 2.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Meenakshinaickanpatty,
Dindigul - 624 002. ... Respondents/
Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order
dated 13.09.2010 made in W.P(MD)No.8319 of 2009.
!For Appellant ... Mr.S.M.Mohan Gandhi
^For Respondents ... Mr.S.Dhayalan
:JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.KIRUBAKARAN,J.) This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge who refused to quash the order of the second respondent denying the compassionate appointment to the appellant.
2. The appellant is the daughter of one Palanivel, who was working as Revenue Supervisor in the respondent Board and he died in harness on 26.11.1994. At the time of his death, she was a minor. Her mother, namely, P.Amutha, made a representation on 11.01.1996 to the second respondent seeking compassionate appointment. By proceedings dated 24.02.1996, the second respondent directed the appellant's mother to provide certain particulars and resubmit the application. However, the appellant's mother died on 04.08.1996 in a fire accident. The appellant and two other children were looked after by their maternal uncle after getting orders from the District Court, Dindigul on 27.03.1998. Thereafter, the appellant after attaining majority, made a representation dated 22.02.2007 seeking compassionate appointment based on the proceedings in (Per.) B.P.(F.B)No.3, Administrative Branch, dated 09.01.2007. The said representation was rejected stating that the Board proceedings No.3, dated 09.01.2007 was cancelled, by another proceedings in B.P.(F.B)No.116, dated 24.03.2007. The said order was challenged before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition quoting a number of the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court that the rejection order is in accordance with the orders of the Government in the matter of employment assistance. Against the said order only, the present appeal has been filed.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents.
4. It is seen from the records that the appellant's father died in harness on 26.11.1994 and her mother applied on 11.01.1996 within three years for compassionate appointment and the same was returned on 24.02.1996, seeking certain documents. Therefore it is evident that within time, an application has been made for compassionate appointment for the death of the appellant's father who left behind her widow and three other minor children including the appellant. Thereafter the appellant's mother died on 04.08.1996 as evident from the Death Certificate dated 22.08.1996. Hence, the appellant and her other siblings were taken care of by their maternal uncle by getting orders from the District Court, Dindigul, on 27.03.1998, as guardian.
5. Relying upon (Per.) B.P.(F.B)No.3, Administrative Branch, dated 09.01.2007, which states that an employee who died prior to 13.10.1995 need not apply within three years and they would be permitted to apply without existence of time limit, the appellant applied for compassionate appointment, which was rejected relying upon the subsequent cancellation proceedings in B.P.(F.B)No.116, dated 24.03.2007.
6. First of all, there is no necessity for the appellant to rely upon the proceedings in B.P.(F.B)No.3, dated 9.01.2007 as the appellant's mother made an application for compassionate appointment as early as on 24.02.1996, within three years from the date of death of her husband, i.e. 26.11.1994. When an application was made in time and the same is proved by the proceedings of the second respondent in Letter No.002393/47/epgp1/cjtp.4/nfh.nt.th/96> dated 24.02.1996, the question of applying limitation does not arise. Hence, the reliance on the proceedings in (Per.) B.P.(F.B)No.3, Administrative Branch, dated 09.01.2007, is unnecessary. Even as per the existing Orders, the appellant is entitled to the compassionate appointment as the application was made in time.
7. One more aspect which has to be considered de hors of the Rules is the pathetic condition of the appellant and other children of late Palanivel. After the death of the said Palanivel in 1994, his wife also passed away on 04.08.1996 after applying for compassionate appointment. In fact, the appellant and others have become orphans and they are looked after by their maternal uncle. When such is the pitiable condition, the respondents should have considered the appellant's application for compassionate appointment with compassion.
8. The learned Single Judge should also have taken into consideration the said aspect. The learned Single Judge, in fact, did not take into consideration the application made by the appellant's mother on 11.01.1996 for compassionate appointment which was in time. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the second respondent as well as the order of the learned Single Judge are set aside. The respondents are directed to make the compassionate appointment to the appellant on or before 01.04.2016, failing which, the respondents shall appear before this Court on 02.04.2016.
9. It is not understandable as to how the respondent Board gave a concession by proceedings in (Per.) B.P.(F.B)No.3, Administrative Branch, dated 09.01.2007 and cancelled the same by proceedings in B.P.(F.B)No.116, dated 24.03.2007, within two months. This Court doubts that the proceedings in (Per.) B.P.(F.B)No.3, Administrative Branch, dated 09.01.2007, was intended to benefit a few people and after accommodation, the proceedings should have been cancelled on 24.03.2007. Passing of this kind of proceedings is deprecated by this court and moreover, no reasons have been assigned as to why concession was given and subsequently, it was withdrawn.
10. In the result, this writ appeal is allowed as above. Though heavy costs has to be awarded for rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment, no costs is awarded taking into consideration the future of the appellant.
To
1.The Chief Engineer (Personnel), VIII Floor, 800 KRR Maligai, Annasalai, Chennai - 2.
2.The Superintending Engineer, Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Meenakshinaickanpatty, Dindigul - 624 002..