Madras High Court
M.Tamilarasan ? vs The Chairman & Managing Director on 14 December, 2017
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R. Suresh Kumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Order Reserved on: 15.02.2017
Order Delivered on: 14.12.2017
DATED: 14.12.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
W.P.(MD).Nos.2280 of 2012,
4202, 4320, 4907 and 14654 of 2012
and
W.P.(MD).Nos.5792 of 2013 and 20319 of 2013
M.Tamilarasan ? Petitioner in
W.P.(MD).No.2280 of 2012
Vs.
1.The Chairman & Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
No.144, Anna Saalai,
Chennai-600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer (Establishment),
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
No.144, Anna Saalai,
Chennai-600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle,
Virudhunagar District. ? Respondents in
W.P.(MD).No.2280 of 2012
Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.2280 of 2012: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the 2nd
respondent in Letter No.064092/422/G9/G91/2010-1, dated 06.08.2010, quash the
same and consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in
any suitable post on compassionate grounds with all consequential service
benefits.
!For Petitioner : Mr.A.Alagusundar
in W.P.(MD).No.2280 of 2012
Mr.P.Kalyana Ramachandran,
in W.P.(MD).No.4202/2012
Mr.K.Hariharan
in W.P.(MD).4320 of 2012
Mr.H.Arumugam,
in W.P.(MD).No.20319/2013
Mr. S.Sahaya Philomin Raj
in W.P.(MD).No.4907 of 2012
Mr. H.Arumugam
in W.P.(MD).No.14654 of 2012
Mr. R.Narayanan
in W.P.(MD).No.5792 of 2013
^For Respondents : Mr.S.Dhayalan
Standing Counsel for TNEB
in W.P.(MD).Nos.2280, 4202, 4320,
4907, 14654 of 2012 and
W.P.No.20319 and 5792 of 2013
Mr.V.Muruganathan
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 and R2
in W.P.(MD).No.5792 of 2013
:COMMON ORDER
In all these Writ Petitions, the Legal Heirs of the deceased employees of the respondents, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TANGEDCO), had applied for compassionate appointment and such requests had been rejected on similar grounds and reasons. Therefore, the respective petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash those rejection orders and consequently, seeking for directions to the respondents, TANGEDCO, to consider the request for giving compassionate appointment.
2.Since the issue raised in these Writ Petitions is one and the same and the prayer sought for in these Writ Petitions are similar in nature, all these Writ Petitions are hereby decided by this Common Order with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both sides.
W.P.(MD).No.2280 of 2012:
3.The father of the petitioner in this Writ Petition, while he was working as a Wireman at Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, died, during service on 27.08.2007. At that time, the age of the petitioner was only 14 years. Since the petitioner's mother i.e., the wife of the deceased employee, did not possess necessary educational qualification for appointment, she made an application to the 3rd respondent on 04.09.2008 and on 15.10.2008 requesting compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
4.The 3rd respondent had sent a communication on 25.10.2008 to the petitioner's mother stating that the petitioner did not complete the age of 18 years. Thereafter, the petitioner passed 10th Standard and also had completed Diploma in Electrical and Electronic Engineering. The petitioner's younger sister, who is the other legal heir of the deceased employee, had also given No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, his mother has made an application once again to the 1st respondent requesting him to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post on compassionate ground immediately after the petitioner completed 18 years of age, but, the 2nd respondent rejected the said request stating that the petitioner had not completed 18 years of age within three years from the date of death of the father of the petitioner. The said rejection order dated 06.08.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
W.P.(MD).No.4202 of 2012:
5.While the father of the petitioner in this Writ Petition was working as Line Inspector at Tiruchendur Sub-Station of the respondent Department, he died during the course of employment on 03.12.1994. At that time, the petitioner was only 14 years old. The petitioner's mother made a representation on 27.11.1996 seeking for compassionate appointment.
Thereafter, subsequent application was also made by the petitioner's mother on 28.04.1998. The 2nd respondent sent a reply on 12.05.1998 to the petitioner's mother to produce some of the documents like death Certificate, Legal Heirship Certificate, Income Certificate, Educational Qualifications Certificate and Property Certificate. The said Certificates sought for from the petitioner had subsequently been produced by the petitioner and his mother. The said Certificates were sent along with an application on 22.07.1998. However, the same was rejected by the 2nd respondent on 12.10.2000 on the ground that the petitioner did not complete the 18 years of age. Thereafter, the petitioner's mother sent further application on 17.06.2001, at that time, the petitioner already completed 18 years of age and the same was rejected on 13.11.2001 by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, yet another request was made on 26.07.2006. However, the 2nd respondent once again rejected the same on 04.08.2006. Finally, the petitioner made a representation on 20.03.2007 and that request was also rejected by the respondents on 21.05.2007 on the ground that the petitioner did not attain the age of 18 years within three years from the date of death of his father. Once again another application was made by the petitioner's mother on 24.01.2008, that was also rejected by the 1st respondent on 26.03.2008. In the rejection order, it is stated that those who made applications seeking compassionate appointment, if they are not made applications within three years period, they can make applications within further one year period. The said relaxation dated 09.01.2007 was cancelled on 24.03.2007 pursuant to the order of the Court and the application of the petitioner through his mother dated 24.01.2008 cannot be considered and therefore, it was rejected. Therefore, challenging all these rejection orders i.e, dated 12.10.2000, 13.11.2001, 04.08.2006, 21.05.2007 and 26.03.2008, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.
W.P.(MD)No.4320 of 20126.The petitioner's father one Venkatachalapathi was working at the respondent Board died on 02.03.1993 while he was in service. On 17.11.1994, the mother of the petitioner had filed an application to the respondents seeking compassionate appointment. The said application was rejected by the respondents on 12.04.1995 on the ground that there was no vacancy available suitable to the educational qualifications of the mother of the petitioner. The brother of the petitioner also subsequently died on 20.09.2003 in a road accident. Therefore, the entire family become under indigent circumstances and rest on the shoulders of the petitioner. The petitioner had applied for the employment assistance on 24.12.2003 immediately after the death of her brother, who had already applied for compassionate appointment.
7.Since the petitioner's representation for compassionate appointment was not considered by the respondents, she filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.35458 of 2005, wherein a direction was given on 08.11.2005, directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner dated 24.12.2003 within a time frame. Subsequently, the petitioner's mother also died on 19.11.2006. Therefore, the family of the petitioner and her younger brother alone left with no source of income or support to maintain them, explaining all these positions, the petitioner further sent a representation on 24.11.2001 to the respondents, however, the respondents passed an order on 04.02.2012, rejecting the request of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not make an application within three years period from the date of death of her father. Therefore, challenging the said order, this Writ Petition has been filed.
W.P.(MD).No.4907 of 2012:
8.The petitioner's father while was working as Wireman in the respondent Department, died on 12.07.1989. At that time, the petitioner was 10 years old and studying 5th Standard. Therefore, the petitioner's mother approached the 3rd respondent for a job on compassionate ground. The 2nd respondent vide his communication dated 26.10.1996 directed the petitioner to wait for the legal dispute between the petitioner's mother and another woman to be settled in a Court of Law. Thereafter, the legal dispute was over, based on which, the petitioner's mother received the Death-cum-retirement Gratuity and other benefits on 26.09.1997. Thereafter, vide communication dated 13.08.1997, the 2nd respondent has asked the petitioner's mother to file the relevant documents and the petitioner's mother also submitted those documents, however, there was no response from the respondents. In the year 1997, since the petitioner attained majority by completing 18 years of age, the petitioner had also applied for a job on compassionate ground on 13.10.1997. However, interestingly, the respondent sent a communication dated 28.10.1999 to the mother of the petitioner stating that she did not hold the required qualifications to seek for any compassionate appointment.
Thereafter, several times, the petitioner approached the respondents and then the petitioner got married and gave birth to three children and thereafter, the petitioner obtained divorce from her husband through legal forum on 09.04.2007. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent asked for the relevant documents from the petitioner and the same were submitted on 12.10.2007. However, on 12.02.2008, the 2nd respondent sent a communication stating that the petitioner had not possessed the minimum educational qualifications and had not attained the age of 18 years within three years from the date of death of the employee i.e., the father of the petitioner. A similar communication was received by the petitioner on 02.02.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a formal representation to the 2nd respondent on 28.11.2011 and another representation on 14.01.2012 seeking compassionate appointment. For those representations, the respondent sent a final communication on Nil.08.2012 stating that the petitioner should have obtained divorce before the death of her father and should have lived with him at the time of the death, to become eligible to get the job on compassionate ground. Therefore, the rejection order dated 12.02.2008 has been put under challenge in this Writ Petition.
W.P.(MD).No.14654 of 2012:
9.The father of the petitioner one Marimuthu employed as Helper in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. While he was working in Royagiri Distribution Office, he met with a electric accident and died on 25.11.1997, leaving behind the petitioner, his mother and his brother. At that time, the petitioner was only 4 years old and his younger brother was just 8 months.
The petitioner's mother is not an educated person and therefore, she was not qualified to seek for any compassionate appointment at the respondent Department. In the circumstance, the petitioner, after completing his S.S.L.C. made an application on 28.02.2011 to the respondent, requesting for employment assistance on compassionate ground. The Superintending Engineer of the TNEB concerned, informed through his letter dated 11.05.2011 that the petitioner has not attained majority by completing 18 years of age within three years from the date of death of his father and also, the petitioner has not passed Std VIII within three years period from the date of death of his father, his request for employment assistance cannot be considered.
10.Thereafter, the petitioner attained the majority on 23.10.2011. Immediately, he made an application on 23.02.2012 requesting the respondents to consider him for compassionate appointment. However, the respondents passed the impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner by their order dated 28.04.2012 stating that the application for compassionate appointment was not given within three years period from the date of death of the employee. Challenging the said order, dated 28.04.2012, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
W.P.(MD).No.5792 of 2013:
11.The petitioner's father one P.Nagarajan, while he was working as Wireman, in Orathanad North Section under the 3rd respondent, died on 16.07.2006 in an accident while in service. The petitioner is the first son of the deceased employee and at the time of death of his father, the petitioner was only 12 years old and his sister also is younger than the petitioner. Since no one was looking after their family as the head of the family suddenly died, leaving behind three minor children and the mother, who suffered a lot. In the year 2012, since the petitioner completed 18 years and attained majority and also qualified with plus 2 and was studying in B.E., II Year at Government Engineering College, Ramanathapuram, had filed application on 23.07.2012 seeking for compassionate appointment at the respondent Department. However, the said request of the petitioner had been rejected by the order of the 3rd respondent vide his letter dated 07.12.2012 on the ground of delay. Challenging the said rejection order dated 07.12.2012, this Writ Petition has been filed.
W.P.(MD).No.20319 of 2013:
12.The petitioner's father one Mani was employed as Lineman in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. While he was working in the Pettai Distribution Office met with an electric accident on 22.05.2016 and died in harness on the same day leaving behind the petitioner, his mother, two minor brothers, aged 12 and 9 years respectively and two minor sisters, aged 16 and
8 years respectively and also, the aged grandmother of the petitioner. At the time of death, the petitioner was only 13 years old. The petitioner's mother is not an educated woman. Therefore, she could not seek for any employment on compassionate appointment at the respondent department. The petitioner's date of birth is 07.06.1993. Therefore, he attained majority on 07.06.2011. He had already completed Std VIII. Therefore, the petitioner made an application on 21.02.2012 seeking employment on compassionate ground. However, the respondents through its order dated 18.05.2012 rejected the said request of the petitioner on the ground that the legal heir of the deceased employee should have filed application within three years from the date of death of the employee. As no such application was made within three years period, the application made by the petitioner was rejected. Challenging the said order of rejection made by the respondent dated 18.05.2012, this Writ Petition has been filed.
13.On behalf of the respondents, separate counter affidavits have been filed in each of the cases. The issue raised in these Writ Petitions are one and the same, the contents made in the respective counter affidavits of the respondents also are in similar line. Therefore, the details made in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(MD).No.2280 of 2012 are taken into account for the purpose of considering the stand of the respondents.
14.The respondents primarily contended that TANGEDCO is governed by the Scheme formulated by the Board and as per the conditions, appointments are being made. In Board Proceedings No.46, dated 13.10.1995, the TANGEDCO ordered that the application in respect of job assistance on compassionate ground, should be made within a period of three years from the date of death of the employee. It is further stipulated that, all appointments to be given on compassionate grounds to only eligible persons, who have completed 18 years of age, with the minimum qualifications of VIII Standard.
15.Therefore, the sum and substance of the contentions made by the respondents in the counter affidavits are that, unless the three criteria fixed by the TANGEDCO namely, (1)the application for compassionate appointment to be made within three years from the date of death of the employee (2)the applicant must have completed 18 years of age at the time of making applications and (3)the applicant must have the educational qualifications of VIII Standard, are fulfilled by the applicant, the stand of the respondents is that, such applications shall be rejected.
16.According to the respondents, in all these cases, the respective applications have been rejected as one of the three criteria as referred to above, has not been fulfilled by the applicants. They further contended in the counter affidavit that, the said stand taken by the respondents following the above proceedings are in tune with various decisions of the Court of Law and in this regard, the respondents have quoted some of the reported decisions. The respondents have relied upon the following Judgments:
(1)State of Gujarat and other v. Arvind Kumar T. Tiwari and another reported in 2012 (9) SCC 545.
(2)Union of India and others v. V.Shashank Goswami and another reported in AIR 2012 SC 2294.
(3)Dr.Preeti Srivastava and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in AIR 1999 SCC 2894.
(4)Prit Singh v. S.K.Mangal and others reported in 1993 (1) SCC (Supp.) 714 (5)Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and others reported in AIR 2008 SC 1817.
6.Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138.
17.They have made some averments at Paras 6 and 9 of the counter affidavit, which are very much relied upon by them. The relevant paras of the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder:
(6)In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others (1994) 4 SCC 138, this Court has considered the nature of the right which a dependant can claim while seeking employment on compassionate ground. The Court observed as under:
?The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. he exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the Change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned. The only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the penurious condition of the deceased's family. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis.
(Emphasis added).
.....
(9)In A.Umarani v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and others, AIR 2004 SC 4504, while dealing with the issue, this Court held that even the Supreme Court should not exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 issuing a direction to give compassionate appointment in contravention of the provisions ofo the Scheme would he legal.
(e)In Bawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India and others reported in 2011 (3) LLN 37 (SC), the Supreme Court has held as follows:
?20.Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind:
(i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme.
(ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time.
(iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the bread winner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be.
(iv)Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/ incapacitated employee, viz. parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts.?
18.I have heard the respective learned counsels appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and I have perused the entire records placed before this Court.
19.In all these Writ Petitions except W.P.(MD).No.4907 of 2012, the factual situations are almost similar. In these cases, the father of the respective petitioners in each case was the employee of the respondent TANGEDCO. While they were in service, each of them died in harness due to electric shock/accident or any other reasons. While the employee died, they left the family at lurch with widow and children. In all these cases, the children of each of the deceased employee were minors, at the time of employee died, during the course of employment. In almost all the cases, even the eldest son or daughter, who are the respective petitioners, were under 18 years of age, at the time of death of the employee. Also, except in one case, in all other cases, the widow of the employee were illiterate or uneducated. These facts are not in dispute.
20.With the above background in each of the case, immediately after the death of the employee concerned, the respective widows filed an application/representation to the respondents Department seeking compassionate appointment either to the widow or the son or daughter, even though they are minors. In one case, since the widow is an illiterate and the eldest child was four years old, no application was immediately made. In all these cases, the applications submitted by the respective widows, within three years period, either had not been considered or had been rejected on the ground that (1)the widow did not possess the educational qualifications and (2)the son or daughter did not attain majority by completing 18 years of age.
21.In all these cases, the respective sons or daughters, who are the petitioners herein, after having attained the age of majority by completing 18 years, immediately applied to the respondent department by making representations seeking compassionate appointment. In all these cases, the respective petitioners have educational qualifications of passing VIII Standard and more. However, in all these cases, the respective applications filed either by the widow within three years period or the son or daughter, who are the petitioners, immediately after attaining the majority, had been rejected, on the ground that they did not fulfill the triple criteria fixed by the Board namely, (1)applications should have been made within three years (2)applicant should have completed VIII Standard and (3)applicant should have attained majority by completing 18 years of age, at the time of making applications or at the end of three years period from the date of death of the employee.
22.Only with these factual matrix, these petitioners have approached this Court, challenging the respective rejection orders, which are impugned herein, issued by the respondents department. The stand taken by the respondents department is that, all the applicants have not fulfilled the triple criteria as fixed by the respondents as referred to above. It is the definite case of the respondents department that, in all these cases, any one of the triple criteria has not been fulfilled. Therefore, the respondents maintained that, the respective rejection orders passed by the Department on the ground that either one of the triple criteria have not been fulfilled by the respective applicants, are sustainable.
23.Further, it is the stand of the respective petitioners in these Writ Petitions that, it is an admitted fact that, at the time of death of the employees of the respondent department, the legal heirs, either son or daughter, were admittedly minors. In some of the cases, they were even under 12 years or 10 years old. None of the widows of the respective employees had fulfilled their educational qualifications. Though in some cases applications have been made by the widows seeking appointment for themselves on compassionate ground, those applications either were rejected for want of educational qualifications or had been kept pending without taking any decision. At least, in one case, the application filed by the widow concerned, was rejected on the ground that, there was no vacancy suitable to the educational qualifications of the widow.
24.The learned counsels appearing for the respective petitioners made submissions that, this kind of rejection on the ground of non fulfillment of any one of the criteria of the TANGEDCO, had been considered in a number of cases. In similar circumstances, the Courts have taken the view that, the compassionate appointments are made de-hors of rule for making appointments and also the compassionate appointments are made in order to tide over the situations, where the family is being under penurious and indigent circumstances because of the untimely death of the head of the family, who is the sole bread winner of the family. Therefore, the Courts have taken the view that, there can be no straight jacket formula to be adopted in case of compassionate appointments nor technicality can stand in the way in considering the request of the legal heirs of the deceased employee seeking for compassionate appointment.
25.It is further submitted by the respective learned counsels appearing for the petitioners that, the three years rule shall not be put against the petitioners herein, of course, it is an admitted fact that at the time of death of the employees concerned, their legal heirs i.e., the petitioners herein were minors. Therefore, even if an application was filed on behalf of the minors by the widows concerned, such applications would have been rejected by the respondents on the ground that minors cannot maintain application seeking appointment. Therefore, the minors had to necessarily wait till they attain the age of majority by completing 18 years. Only on attaining the age of majority and acquiring the educational qualifications by passing VIII Standard, the legal heirs of the deceased employees i.e., the petitioners herein, had applied to the respondents department. It is also the fact that in most of the cases, even within the three years period from the date of death of the employee, widows had made applications seeking compassionate appointment either for the widow or for the minor child of the employee. Therefore, in all these cases, even within the three years period, applications have been made. In some cases, those applications have been rejected on the ground that, the son or daughter of the employees did not attain the age of majority or on the ground that the widow did not have the educational qualifications. Therefore, the respective learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that, in all these cases, the petitioners have fulfilled the triple criteria of making applications within three years period, having the educational qualifications of VIII Standard pass, and also attained the majority by completing 18 years. If these qualifications and fulfillment are completed, there can be no further impediment for the respondents department to deny the employment opportunity under compassionate ground. Therefore, the respective learned counsels appearing for the petitioners would submit that, all these Writ Petitions have to be allowed.
26.Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Department in each of these cases would contend that, it is a settled law that no minor can claim appointment in any Government organizations. Moreover, the Scheme of compassionate appointment itself is for the purpose of alleviating the penurious circumstances and indigent situations faced by the family of the deceased employee, because of the sudden death of the employee concerned, while he/she was in service. The said position of penurious circumstances and indigent situation, cannot be accepted to be lasting for ever or for years together. That is the reason why the Department, in tune with the Government Orders passed by the State Government in this regard, has issued Board Proceedings, by thus, the three years rule had been brought in. And also, the requirement of attaining the majority by completing 18 years and also having the minimum educational qualifications of passing VIII Standard, was fixed by the respondents department, by issuing Board proceedings from time to time.
27.In this regard, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents heavily relied upon the Board Proceeding No.46, dated 13.10.1995. For easy reference, the Board proceedings are extracted hereunder:
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD (ABSTRACT) RECRUITMENT - Employment assistance to the dependant of the deceased employees of the Board who died while in service - Appointment on Compassionate grounds - Modification orders issued.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Permanent B.P.Ms.(FB) No.46 (Adm Branch) Dt. 13.10.95 Thiruvalluvar Aandu 2016 Yuva Aandu Purattasi 26.
READ:
G.O.Ms.No.120 (Labour & Employment Department) dt.26.6.95.
---
PROCEEDINGS:
In the G.O.cited, the Government of Tamil Nadu (Labour and Employment Department) have issued the following modification Department) have issued the following modifications to the scheme of compassionate grounds appointment to the dependants of the deceased employees:-
(a) The application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be made within three years of the Death of Govt. Servant.
(b) The maximum age limit, for such appointment be raised to 50 years in the case of widows of the deceased Govt. Servants.
2. As per the existing scheme in the Board, the employment assistance is being considered to the dependants of the employees of the Board who died while in service without any time limit for the submission of the application for employment assistance. It is specified that the age of Sons/Unmarried daughters, widowed or deserted daughters, divorced daughters should not be more than 30 years and in the case of widow 40 years on the date of death of the Board employee.
3. The Board has decided to adopt the orders of the Govt. Accordingly the following modification of the existing scheme of providing employment assistance to the dependants of the deceased employees of the Board is ordered.
1. The application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be made within three years from the date of death of employees of the Board.
2. The maximum age limit, for such appointment be raised to 50 (fifty) years in the case of widows of the deceased employees of the Board.
3. In the case of already expired staff while in service, the dependants should apply for employment assistance within three years from the date of issue of this order.
(BY ORDER OF THE BOARD) OLNEY ARON CHIEF ENGINEER (PERSONNEL) // TRUE COPY//
28.By relying upon the Board proceedings and also relying upon the various Judgments referred to by them in the counter affidavits, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that, none of the petitioners, since have fulfilled the triple criteria fixed by the respondents/Department, their respective applications had been rightly rejected by the respondents/department and therefore, the impugned orders are sustainable and no interference from this Court is required.
29.After the Board proceedings in B.P.Ms.(FB).No.46 dated 13.10.1995, the respondents had issued Proceedings No.17 dated 01.11.2011. This proceedings was issued by giving certain clarifications to the Board proceedings dated 13.10.1995. The said clarifications as mentioned in Paras 2 and 3 are extracted hereunder:
?2) mjd; nghpy; gzpapail kuzkile;j jkpH;ehL kpd; cw;gj;jp kw;Wk; gfpu;khd fHfk;. jkpH;ehL kpd; bjhluikg;g[ fHfk; kw;Wk; jkpH; ehL kpd;thhpa epWtdk; CHpahpd; thhpRjhuUf;F fUiz mog;gilapy; gzp epakdk; tH';;fpl fPH;f;fhQqk; bjspt[iufs; tH';fg;gLfpd;wd/
m) 23/08/2005f;F Kd;du;. fUiz mog;gilapy; gzp epakdk; nfhhp K:d;W (3) Mz;L fhyf;bfLt[f;Fs; bgwg;gl;l tpz;zg;g';fs; 18 tajpid epiwt[ bgwhky;
,Ue;jhYk;. fUiz mog;gilapyhd gzpepakdj;jpw;fhd Vida gpw jFjpfis epiwt[ bra;a[k; gl;rj;jpy; jFjpahdjhff; fUjg;gl ntz;Lk;/ M) 23/08/2005 Kjy; fUiz mog;gilapyhd gzp epakdj;jpw;fhd taJ 18 vd epu;zapf;fg;gl;ljhy; 23/08/2005f;F gpd;du; 18 taJ epuk;gpa thhpRjhuu; kl;Lnk fUiz mog;gilapy; gzp epakdk; bgwj; jFjpahdtu; vdf; fUjg;gl ntz;Lk;/ ,) ghu;it 3d; go fUiz fUiz mog;gilapy; gzp epakd';fSf;F jkpH;ehL kpd; cw;gj;jp kw;Wk; gfpu;khd fHfk;. jkpH;ehL kpd; bjhluikg;g[ fHfk; kw;Wk; jkpH; ehL kpd;thhpa epWtdk; CHpau;fs; ,we;j K:d;whz;ow;Fs;. tpz;zg;gjhuu; tpz;zg;gk; mspf;Fk; ehspidna fzf;fpy; bfhz;L. taJ kw;Wk; fy;tpj; jFjpfs; epu;zapf;fg;glntz;Lk;/ <) nkny gj;jp 2 (,) y; cs;s bjspt[iu muR fojk; btspaplg;gl;l ehs; Kjy; jkpH;ehL kpd; cw;gj;jp kw;Wk; gfpu;khd fHfk;. jkpH;ehL kpd; bjhluikg;g[ fHfk; kw;Wk; jkpH; ehL kpd;thhpa epWtdk; eilKiwg;gLj;j mKYf;F tUfpwJ/ 3/ nkw;fz;l muR cj;jputpid jkpH;ehL kpd; cw;gj;jp kw;Wk; gfpu;khd fHfk;. jkpH;ehL kpd; bjhluikg;g[ fHfk; kw;Wk; jkpH; ehL kpd;thhpa epWtdk; 04/05/2010 Kjy; eilKiwg;gLj;j ,jd; K:yk; Mizaplg;gLfpwJ/?
30.As per the said clarifications, if an application is filed before 23.08.2005 seeking compassionate appointment and at the time of making application and within the three years period, if the applicant has not completed 18 years, such application, if the applicant fulfilled the other criteria, can be considered as an eligible application. The aforesaid clarification was sought to be implemented from 04.05.2010. Pursuant to the said proceedings No.17, dated 01.11.2011. on the very same day, further letter has been issued by the respondents department, which reads thus:
??,j;Jld; ,izf;fg;gl;Ls;s ghu;itapy; fz;l Mizapd;go gzpapypUe;J kuzkile;j thhpag; gzpahshpd; thhpRjhu;fspy; ahnuDk; xUtu; tpz;zg;gpj;J. mt;tpz;zg;gk; kw;w epge;jidfSf;Fl;gl;L 18 taJ epiwtilahj fhuzj;jpdhy; epuhfhpf;fgl;oapUg;gpd; mt;tpz;zg;gk; - fUj;JUf;fs; kPz;Lk; fstprhuiz bra;J fs tprhuiz mjpfhhp ifbahg;gk; kw;Wk; j';fspd; ghpe;Jiuapd; nghpy; kPz;Lk; ghprPyid bra;a VJthf ,t;tYtyfj;jpw;F mDg;gp itf;Fk;go j';fis nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpnwd;/
2) ,f;fojk; kw;Wk; epiy KG thhpa jkpH;ehL kpd; cw;gj;jp kw;Wk; kpd;
gfpu;khd fHfk; bray;Kiw Miz vz;/17 ehs; 01/11/2011 bgw;wikf;F cld; xg;g[jy; mDg;g[k;go nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpnwd;/?
31.Pursuant to the Proceedings No.17, since clarifications was issued therein, this letter dated 01.11.2011 referred to above, has directed, the respective Superintending Engineers, that, wherever an application had been rejected seeking compassionate appointment on the ground that the applicant had not completed 18 years, those applications can be reconsidered by conducting a field enquiry.
32.These proceedings and the letter referred to above, dated 01.11.2011, issued by the respondent Department would make it abundantly clear that, the condition of attainment of majority by completing 18 years, at the time of making applications or within three years period from the date of death of the employee of the Board, was relaxed, at least from 23.08.2005 and such relaxation came into effect from 04.05.2010. Therefore, it makes clear that the respondent Board themselves realized the fact that, in many of the cases of compassionate appointment, within three years period from the date of death of the employee, the legal heirs i.e, the son and daughter, who are minors and even within the three years period, since most of them would not get the majority, one of the triple criteria i.e., the attaining majority at the time of making application or within the three years period, could not be fulfilled by them and therefore, in order to remove such a difficulty faced by the deceased employee's family, the Board has come forward to issue the proceedings dated 01.11.2011, thereby, the three years rule for attaining the majority has been relaxed.
33.It comes to know that, these factors have not been considered by the respondents Board in any of these cases, if we perused the materials placed before this Court.
34.The respective learned counsels appearing for the petitioners relied upon a number of Judgments of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue raised in this batch of Writ Petitions. Some of the decisions, which are relevant for the disposal of these Writ Petitions are dealt with herein.
35.In the first Judgment, the petitioners' counsel heavily relied upon M.Uma vs. Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and another reported in 2010 (7) MLJ 644. In the said case, applications for compassionate appointment given by the petitioner therein was rejected on the ground that within three years period from the date of death of the petitioner, the application was not made and therefore, it was rejected. Considering the said case, the learned Judge of this Court, after having considered the earlier decisions of this Court in P.Rajamani v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai, reported in 2007 (8) MLJ 665, a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in W.A.No.3050 of 2003, a Judgment of this Court of the learned Judge in D. Ramadoss Vs. The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board reported in 2001 W.L.R. 601, another Judgment of a learned Judge made in W.P.No.24225 of 2001 dated 01.02.2002 and also, the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in Civil Appeal.No.2039 of 2006 in the matter of Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another vs Indiraniammal, has ultimately allowed the Writ Petition, giving directions to the respondent department to consider the request of the petitioner therein, for compassionate appointment without reference to the objection raised in the said impugned order therein, that, the petitioner therein, had not applied within three years from the date of death of the petitioner's father. In order to appreciate the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as a Division Bench of this Court and the order of the learned Judge referred to above, the following extract of the said Judgment in M.Uma vs. Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and another reported in 2010 (7) MLJ 644, is extracted hereunder:
?6.Identical issue was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in P. RAJAMANI VS. CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHENNAI reported in 2006 LAB.I.C. 4163. In paragraph-6 of the judgment, it is held as follows:-
"6. Having heard the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, we are not able to appreciate and accept the stand of the respondents. We hasten to state that the very purport of extending a helping hand to a destitute on the death of her husband by way of compassionate appointment would get defeated if such claims are turned down on such hyper- technical ground. In the case on hand, as noted earlier, after the death of the appellant's husband on 15.11.1996, an application was made on 7.4.1997 for compassionate appointment for her elder son. Therefore, (M. Uma vs The Chief Engineer (Personnel) on 29 June, 2010) there was an application for compassionate appointment within five months from the date of the death of her husband. It was unfortunate that the said application came to be rejected on the ground that her elder son was over aged. Such rejection was made only on 5.12.1998. Therefore, the appellant had to necessarily wait for some more time in order to renew her claim for appointment of her younger son who was running 18 years as on 11.11.1999. The said younger son completed his 18 years on 15.3.2000. Nevertheless, the appellant wanted to ensure that an application was made on 11.11.1999 itself for that son in order to confirm that an application for compassionate appointment was made well within time i.e., before 14.11.1999 by which time the three years period from the date of death of her husband would come to an end. Subsequently, on 1.4.2000, her younger son himself renewed the application preferred by the appellant on 11.11.1999 by making another application along with the no objection letters of his other brothers. Therefore, all the above steps taken by the appellant go to show that she was diligently pursuing her claim for compassionate appointment over the death of her husband right from the year 1997 till 1.4.2000. In such circumstances, when the appellant being a widow and since she had no other source of livelihood, the respondents should have been much more sympathetic and practical in considering the claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment to her younger son based on the application dated 11.11.1999 and 1.4.2000. In this context, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant reported in 2004 (4) MLJ 238 and 2002(4)LLN 1132 as well as the decision of the Division Bench reported in 2005 W.L.R.256, cited supra, fully supports the claim of the appellant."
7. In the above said judgment, the rejection order was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court and the respondents were directed to entertain the application of the appellant in the writ appeal and pass appropriate orders for granting compassionate appointment to the claimant within a period of three months. In W.A.No.3050 of 2003, the Division Bench of this Court (Honourable P.Sathasivam, J., and S.K.Krishnan, J.) considered a similar issue and granted relief to a person, who was a minor when his father died while on duty and the application was submitted after 3 years of the death of his father due to the rejection of earlier application. In paragraphs-8 to 16, the Division Bench held as follows:-
"8. ...... ..... No doubt, as per that proceedings, an application for appointment on compassionate ground should be made within three years from the date of death of an employee. The second application being 13.01.2003 and the date of death of her husband being 15.07.1996, the second respondent by applying the said B.P., rejected her request.
9. We have already referred to the letter of the second respondent dated 14.07.1999, which finds a place at page 11 of the typed set, wherein the second respondent, who is the competent officer while considering her application dated 10.07.1999 for appointment on compassionate ground has requested her to apply afresh after her son attaining majority (18 years). As said earlier, immediately on attaining majority, i.e., on 11.01.2003, the petitioner has made another application on 13.01.2003. In such a circumstance, particularly in the light of the statement made by the second respondent in his letter dated 14.07.1999 and of the fact that the petitioner has made a further representation on 13.01.2003, i.e., within a period of two days on her son attaining majority, as directed by the second respondent, we are of the view that the rejection of her representation based on BP.No.46 dated 13.10.1995 on the ground that her application is beyond the period of three years M. Uma vs The Chief Engineer (Personnel) on 29 June, 2010) from the date of death of her husband cannot be sustained.
10. Mr. V. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has very much relied on the following decisions in support of his submissions justifying the rejection of the petitioner's application.
(i) 1994 (2) S.C.C. 718;
(ii) 2000 (7) Supreme 83;
(iii) 2000 (7) S.C.C. 192;
(iv) 2004 (7) Supreme 691 and
(v) 2004 (7) S.C.C. 265.
We find that the following principles emerged from the above decisions.
(i) The Courts and Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration;
(ii) The Tribunal or the High court cannot compel the Department concerned to relax the ceiling of compassionate appointment and appoint a person;
(iii) There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes major after number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief;
(iv) Appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the Rules, Regulations or administrative instructions, taking into consideration the financial conditions of the family of the deceased; and
(v) Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Died-in-harness Scheme cannot be made applicable to all types of posts irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the deceased employee.
11. If we apply the above principles, no doubt the claim of the petitioner has to be rejected. However, in our case, the Electricity Board has framed a Scheme and formulated certain guidelines, as seen from B.P.46 dated 13.10.1995. As per the said proceedings, particularly Clause 3 (i), one of the main condition is that application for appointment on compassionate ground should be made within three years from the date of death of an employee. In our case, we have already observed that the petitioner made an application within three years period and one more factor in favour of the petitioner is that the second respondent himself has informed in his letter dated 14.07.1999 that her son being a minor, after attaining the age of 18 years, she would make another application. Pursuant to the same, she has made an application on 13.01.2003, i.e., within two days on her son attaining majority.
12. The learned counsel for the Board has brought to our notice that by proceedings dated 06.04.2002, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has deleted two conditions imposed in Boards Circular dated 14.06.1997, viz., (a) if the applicant is a minor, he has to make an application after attaining majority; and (b) fresh application after attaining majority will be considered based on the Rules of the Board applicable on that date. It is contended that since the above said Clauses have been deleted by the above referred proceedings dated 06.04.2002, which has come into force from 06.04.2002 itself, the second application of the petitioner dated 13.01.2003 cannot be considered as per BP.46, dated 13.10.1995, as her application is beyond the period of three years from the date of death of her husband. For the reasons stated in para 11 we are unable to sustain the said objection.
13. Though the learned single Judge while rejecting the request of the petitioner relied on Judgment of one of us (P. Sathasivam,J.) made in W.P.No.14134 of 1991 dated 25.01.1999 and the case of Union of India vs. Bhagwan Singh reported in 1995 (6) S.C.C. 476 as well as the case of State of U.P. vs. Parasnath reported in 1998 (2) S.C.C. 412, for the same reasons as stated in para 11 above, those judgments are not directly applicable to the case on hand. In the case of G. Vijayaraghavan vs. General Manager (P) Indian Bank reported in 2000 (3) L.L.N. 625, learned single Judge of this Court (P. Sathasivam,J.) in similar circumstance directed the Indian Bank to consider the claim of the petitioner therein, who made an application on attaining majority for employment on compassionate ground. In that decision, it is held that, irrespective of settlement of full term service gratuity and other benefits, eligible person can claim appointment on compassionate grounds.
14. In the case of D. Ramadoss vs. The Chief Engineer, T.N.E.B., reported in 2001 W.L.R. 601, the learned single Judge (D. Murugesan,J.) in an identical circumstance, relying on a very same Board Proceedings No.46 dated 13.10.1995, after noting the fact that the petitioner has made a request within the period of three years, as per the Circular, though there was enormous delay, directed the Electricity Board to consider the request of the petitioner therein for appointment on compassionate ground.
15. In W.P.No.24225 of 2001 dated 01.02.2002, the learned single Judge (K.P. Sivasubramaniam), had an occasion to consider similar claim against Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Before the learned Judge, the father of the petitioner, who was employed in the Electricity Board died on 19.10.1996. On behalf of his legal heirs, an application dated 01.12.1997 was forwarded by the mother of the petitioner for seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The said application was also endorsed by the Superintending Engineer by his letter dated 07.01.1998 and the mother of the petitioner was directed to apply for appointment in due course after filing a formal application. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner complied with the direction. However, the said application was returned by the respondents with an observation that the petitioners son was a minor as on that date and to submit an application after he attains majority. The petitioner, after attainment of majority of his son, by letter dated 08.06.2001, applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, by order dated 17.08.2001, the request of the petitioner was rejected on two grounds, namely, that the application has not been submitted within three years after the death of his father and the petitioner did not complete 18 years within three years. Rejecting both the grounds, the learned Judge has concluded that the limitation of three years from the date of the Boards Proceedings dated 13.10.1995 was contemplated only as a result of the said Circular having been issued afresh in the context of regulating appointments on compassionate ground. It is further held that the mention of the period of limitation cannot have any relevance to the case of the petitioner, who has been specifically directed to apply after completion of 18 years of his son. According to the learned Judge, Clause (3) of B.P.46 dated 13.10.1995 cannot apply to the facts of the present case. The learned Judge has also observed that the Department itself permitted the mother of the petitioner to renew her application after her son attains majority, which has been complied with. In such a circumstance, the learned Judge concluded that there is no justifiable reason to reject the application for appointment on compassionate ground and directed the Department to consider the application on merits. It is stated that the Department has accepted the said direction. Inasmuch as in the case before the learned Judge as well as before us, the initial application was made within time, because of the fact that the son of the deceased was a minor, mother was asked to apply after her son attains majority and in both the cases the application was made immediately after attaining majority, in such a circumstance, as rightly said, the second application cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. We are also satisfied that similar scheme in the form of Board Proceedings and conditions are not available in the cases of the Supreme Court relied on by the learned counsel for respondents. It is also brought to our notice that almost in similar circumstance, another learned single Judge of this Court (F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla,J.) in the case of T. Meer Ismail Ali vs. T.N.E.B., reported in 2004 (3) C.T.C. 120 directed the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to consider the claim of the petitioner therein.
16. Though we are conscious of the directions of the Supreme Court which we have already referred to in the earlier part of our order, in view of the Boards Proceedings referred to above and of the fact that the petitioner has made an application within three years from the date of death of her husband i.e., within the prescribed period and also made subsequent application as directed by the second respondent and also taking note of the assertion of the petitioner that after her husbands death, in the absence of any income, she is living in poverty, her claim has to be considered. In this regard it is worthwhile to refer the case of the Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., reported in 2000 (6) S.C.C. 493, wherein their Lordships have held that inthe case of appointment considering the social and economic justice as enshrined in the Constitution, denial of deserving cases are liable to be set aside. Further, the purpose of providing compassionate ground to a son or daughter or a near relative of the deceased government servant is to render assistance to the family, which is found in indigent circumstances. Hence in considering the case for compassionate appointments, the authorities are supposed to adopt a humane outlook. We do not find any delay or laches on the part of the petitioner, we are unable to accept the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge in our case and we are satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for consideration of her claim. Accordingly, the order of the learned single Judge as well as the order impugned in the writ petition, viz., W.P.No.21512 of 2003 are set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioners application dated 13.01.2003 on merits and provide necessary relief. Consequently, the writ appeal is allowed. "
8. The said judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2039 of 2006, dated 30.3.2010. The said order reads as follows:-
"IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.2039 of 2006 Chief Engg. T.N. Electricity Board & Another .. Appellants Versus Indiraniammal .. Respondent WITH Civil Appeal Nos.2858-2859 of 2010 (Arising from SLP ( C) Nos.5068-5069/2009) O R D E R Civil Appeal No.2039 of 2006 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
On the facts of the case, we are not inclined to exercise our discretioAnr tuincdleer 136 of the The Civil Appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs.
However, the impugned judgment shall not operate as a precedent in future.
Civil Appeals arising from SLP ( C) Nos.5068-5069/2009 Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
These Appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madras The Division Bench of the High Court has reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge only on the ground of delay who directed compassionate appointment to the appellant. The appellant was a minor at the time of the death of his father and since the mother of the appellant applied within time, we are of the opinion that the appellant after becoming major should have been granted compassionate appointment.
Accordingly, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and restore the judgment of the learned Single Judge. No costs.
.....................J. (MARKANDEY KATJU) NEW DELHI; .....................J. MARCH, 30, 2010 (A.K. PATNAIK)"
9. During the pendency of the Civil Appeal in Indiraniammal case, a Division Bench of this Court considered a similar claim of another candidate in W.A.No.42 of 2007 and by order dated 2.7.2009, the Division Bench held as follows:-
" 3. The respondent by name P.Venkatesan is the son of Thiru Ponnusamy, who was employed as a Wireman in Vellore division of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The father of the respondent died in harness on 20.3.99 leaving his wife, three daughters and the respondent as his legal heirs. At the time of the death of the father of the respondent, the respondent was aged about 12 years. After attaining the age of 18 years on 22.7.2005, on the same day, he made an application for appointment on compassionate ground. That application came to be rejected by the proceedings of the Superintending Engineer, Vellore Electricity Distribution Circle on the ground that he is not eligible as per the Board's proceedings, as he submitted the application after the cut-off period viz., the application should have been submitted within three years from the date of death of the board employee. The writ petition filed by the respondent came to be allowed following the judgment of this Court in T.Meer Ismail Ali v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board through its Chairman and another, (2004) 3 CTC 120. Hence this appeal by the electricity board.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent.
5. The appellant-Board, admittedly, has evolved a scheme for providing appointment on compassionate ground. It appears that initially the scheme provided for the compassionate appointment to the dependants of the employees of the Board who died while in service without prescribing any time limit for the submission of application and that the sons/unmarried daughters, widowed or deserted daughters, divorced daughters should not be more than 30 years of age and in the case of widow 40 years on the date of death of the Board employee. Thereafter, the appellant-Board thought it fit to modify the scheme relating to compassionate appointment and issued the proceedings in Permanent B.P.Ms.(FB) No.46 (Adm.Branch) dated 13.10.95 by directing that (i) the application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be made within three years from the date of death of employees of the Board, (ii) the maximum age limit for such appointment be raised to 50 in the case of widows of the deceased employees of the Board and (iii) in case of already expired staff while in service the dependant should apply for employment assistance within three years from the date of issue of this order.
6. Nevertheless, the appellant-Board issued the proceedings in Memo No.147941/921/R.6(2)/96 dated 14.6.97, which reads as follows:-
"(1) As per the B.P.(F.B.) No.46 dated 13.10.1995, the legal heirs of the deceased employees shall give application within 3 years from the date of death of Board employee as mentioned in the letter under reference cited.
(2) Board employees who died prior to implementation of B.P.No.46 dated 13.10.1995, the legal heirs of the deceased employees shall apply for employment assistance within 3 years from the date of issue of the said B.P. (3) If the applicants who applied for employment assistance within 3 years from the date of death and not completed 18 years of age, such cases will be requested to apply again after completion of 18 years of age.
(4) If the applicants applied again after completion of 18 years of age, the applicants will be intimated that such applications will be examined as per the Board's Rules in force at that time."
7. However, paragraphs (3) & (4) of the above memo dated 14.6.97 were sought to be withdrawn by the Board by a subsequent memo dated 6.4.2002 with effect from the said date. The respondent, after attaining the age of 18 years, has immediately made an application in terms of the memo dated 14.6.97. However, the said application was not entertained by the Board in view of the Board's proceedings dated 13.10.95. The application of the said circular dated 13.10.95 came up for consideration before this Court in the judgment in D.Ramadoss v. The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Chennai and another, 2001 Writ L.R. 601.
8. In fact, a similar question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.3050 of 2003 dated 8.3.2005 (Indiraniammal v. The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and another). The issue that fell for consideration before the Division Bench was not only the applicability of the circular dated 14.6.97, but also the subsequent cancellation of the provision for making an application even after a person attaining majority i.e., on 6.4.2002. The Division Bench in paragraph-16 set aside the subsequent circular dated 6.4.2002. Our attention was also drawn that though the said order was taken on appeal, the Supreme Court by judgment dated 11.8.2005 in S.L.P.(C) No.16518 of 2005, while directing the notice on the application for condonation of delay, further directed that the petitioner's case shall be considered in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court and subject to the result of the Special Leave Petition. In the absence of any stay order by the Supreme Court, the Division Bench judgment in Indiraniammal's case should alone be applied to the facts of this case.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Board has brought to our notice the judgment of another Division Bench in E.Ramasamy v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board rep.by its Chairman, Chennai and others, (2006) 4 MLJ 1080. The said judgment was rendered by following the circular dated 6.4.2002, whereby the provision for an application to be made even after a person attaining majority was deleted. Inasmuch as the validity of the very circular was put in issue before the earlier Division Bench in Indiraniammal's case and the same was set aside, in our considered opinion, with great respect to the Division Bench which rendered the judgment in Ramasamy's case, the judgment in Ramasamy's case cannot be applied, particularly when the challenge to the order of the Division Bench in Indiraniammal's case was not stayed by the Supreme Court. We have rendered the above finding by simply following the earlier Division Bench judgment in Indiraniammal's case and we are not embarking into the validity of the circular dated 14.6.97 or the subsequent circular dated 6.4.2002, as the matter is pending before the Supreme Court.
10. As we have already pointed out that the matter concerns only about the eligibility to make an application and not for an automatic appointment on compassionate ground, even in case if this Court directs the application to be entertained, it is open to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the appellants herein to consider the application on its own merit and decide whether the applicant could be granted compassionate appointment or not. The consideration of the application for compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule, where any vacant post in Government or public sector undertaking etc., should be filled up only by the usual method of recruitment as per the rules. Having regard to the fact that the Board themselves have come forward with a decision to entertain the applications from the candidates even after they attained majority, though there is a considerable lapse of time in making such application, it cannot now reject the application of the respondent on the ground that it was filed with considerable lapse of time.
11. For all the above reasons, we are of the considered view that the application made by the respondent cannot be rejected on the ground that it was filed after a lapse of time and the said application should be considered by the Board on its own merits and be disposed of within a period of two months. We once again make it clear that by the above direction, we do not mean that the respondent would be automatically entitled for compassionate appointment merely because we have directed the consideration of his application. With the above observation, the writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2007 is also dismissed. "
The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that no appeal is filed by the respondents against the said order till date.
10. In the light of the above judgments of the Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench judgments of this Court and having regard to the fact that the petitioner's application was rejected by order dated 26.2.2005 on the ground that she has not submitted the application within three years and the application was submitted by the petitioner's brother on 29.4.2002 and after the said rejection, the petitioner applied on 10.6.2002 and the proof of sending the application is filed in the typed set of papers and also the fact that the petitioner's family is still in indigent circumstances, I am of a firm view that the petitioner has made out a case to issue a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment without reference to the objection raised in the impugned order i.e., the petitioner has not applied within three years from the date of the death of the petitioner's father. Necessary revised order is directed to be passed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.?
36.The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners also relied upon the Judgment in T. Meer Ismail Ali vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board through its Chairman and two others, 2004 (3) CTC 120. The following passages of the said Judgment are usefully referred to herein:
?2.The petitioner's father was employed in the Electricity Board as Accounting Supervisor in the Aruppukkottai Revenue Unit of Kamarajar Electricity Distribution Circle, now known as Virudhunagar Distribution Circle. He met with a sudden death on 13.04.1993 due to cardiac arrest while in service, leaving behind his wife, three daughters and the petitioner. When the petitioner made an application earlier for compassionate appointment on 05.08.1997, the same was rejected by the respondent-Board stating that he had not completed 18 years of age and therefore his application cannot be considered. Subsequently, the petitioner is said to have acquired a Diploma in Electrical and Electronic Engineering and after completing 18 years of age in 2000, he made an application for compassionate appointment on 04.07.2000.
The said application was also rejected by the respondent Board stating that the application was not made within three years from the date when B.P.No.46 dated 13.10.1995 came to be issued.
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner completed 18 years of age only in the year 2000. When the petitioner's earlier application was rejected on the ground that he did not complete 18 years of age, it cannot be held that the petitioner was not diligent in seeking for compassionate appointment at the earliest point of time. In fact, immediately after attaining 18 years of age and also after qualifying himself, when the petitioner came forward with the present application on 04.07.2000, in all fairness, the respondent should have considered the petitioner's claim on merits. In fact in the application, the petitioner would claim that one of his sisters is mentally retarded and therefore, he is the only breadwinner of the family. 4. In such circumstances, it was a deserving case where the respondent should have shown some compassion while considering the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment. Unfortunately, the respondent did not seem to have shown any compassion at all and mercilessly rejected the petitioner's application on a hyper technical ground.
......
6.I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner's case deserves consideration inasmuch as he had diligently made a claim once in the year 1997 and thereafter, immediately after attaining the age of 18, in the year 2000 and in such circumstances, rejection of his application on the ground that it was not made within three years was not justified.?
37.They also relied upon yet another Judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in A.Musthfa Iqbal Basha vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Educational Department, Chennai and others reported in 2011 (4) MLJ 438. The following passage in the said Judgment can be usefully referred to herein:
?9.It is true, as contended by the learned Government Advocate, that the objective of providing compassionate appointment is to tide over the sudden indigent circumstances unexpectedly created by the sudden death of the Government Servant. As the petitioner was a minor at the time of the death of his father and at the same time his mother was also not eligible for appointment, he could not submit any application for compassionate appointment. Instead, he, immediately after attaining majority, submitted an application to the respondents. Just because there is a delay in submitting the application for the said reason by the petitioner for compassionate appointment, it cannot be said that the family of the deceased Government servant has got over the indigent circumstances. It is seen from the records that the two sisters of the petitioner are married and the brother is living separately. Now, the persons left out in the family are the petitioner and his mother, who are without any job and in every need of employment. In the given situation, it is very difficult for them to get two square meals a day. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the family of the deceased government servant cannot be left in lurch.?
38.A similar issue came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.1400 of 2011 in the matter of S.Velraj v. The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tirunelveli Electricity Distribution Circle, Tirunelveli and another. The relevant parts of the said Division Bench Judgment are extracted hereunder:
?2. The appellant is the eldest son of one S.Shanmugiah, who was working as Helper in the respondent Board and died in harness on 19.03.1992. At the time of death, the appellant was aged about 12 years. On attaining majority, he applied for compassionate appointment. However, the same was rejected on the ground that the application had been filed beyond three years. The said order was challenged before the learned Single Judge, who dismissed the Writ Petition relying upon a series of judgments.
3. It is admitted fact that the employee died on 19.03.1992, leaving behind four children and at that time, the appellant is the eldest son, aged about 12 years. If he applied for appointment on compassionate ground at that time, when he was 12 years, his application would have been rejected on the ground that he was a minor and, therefore, on attaining majority, the appellant rightly applied for appointment on compassionate ground. However, taking into consideration the plight of the family and also the young age of the mother and other children, it is a case where appointment on compassionate ground has to be given. Three years limitation cannot be applied in strait-jacket formula and each and every case has to be approached differently, based on the facts. Since the eldest son of the family has rightly applied for appointment on compassionate ground, on attaining majority, the respondents have to consider the appellant's application for appointment on compassionate ground.
4. In view of the above, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge and also the order of rejection for appointment on compassionate ground are set aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh disposal, in the light of the judgment passed by this Court. Such exercise shall be completed, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs.?
39.Following the said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in S.Velraj's case cited supra, the following orders were passed by the learned Judges, in the respective Writ Petitions.
(1).In W.P.No.(MD).1099 of 2016 (E.Yasodha v. The Superintending Engineer), dated 20.01.2016, the relevant portion of the orders are reproduced hereunder:
?2.The petitioner is the eldest daughter of one Esakki, who was working as a Commercial Inspector in the respondent Board and died in harness on 19.06.2004. At the time of death, the petitioner was aged about 13 years. On attaining majority, she applied for compassionate appointment. However, the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 19.06.2015 on the ground that the application had been filed beyond three years.
?3.This writ petition is against the aforesaid order dated 19.06.2015 passed by the respondent.
4.It is admitted fact that the employee died on 19.06.2004, leaving behind his wife, two daughters and one son and at that time, the petitioner who is the eldest daughter, aged about 13 years. If she applied for appointment on compassionate ground at that time, when she was 13 years, her application would have been rejected on the ground that she was a minor and, therefore, on attaining majority, the petitioner rightly applied for appointment on compassionate ground. However, taking into consideration the plight of the family and also the young age of the mother and other children, I am of the view that it is a fit case where appointment on compassionate ground has to be given. Three years limitation cannot be applied in strait- jacket formula and each and every case has to be approached differently, based on the facts as held by the Division Bench in W.A(MD)1400/2011. Since the eldest daughter of the family has rightly applied for appointment on compassionate ground, on attaining majority, the respondent has to consider the petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate ground.
5.In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh disposal, in the light of the observations made above. Such exercise shall be completed, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.?
(2)Yet another Judgment of a learned Judge of this Court dated 20.09.2016 made in W.P.(MD).11594 of 2014 in the matter of A.Vijayaknth v. The Chairman, TANGEDCO and others also, followed the said Division Bench Judgment in Velraj's case cited supra. The relevant portion of the Judgment is extracted hereunder:
?2.The petitioner's father is one Andi. Before his death, he was serving under the respondents as Line Man. He died in harness on 19.08.1993 leaving behind the entire family. By the time when the petitioner's father died, he was aged 7 years. The petitioner's father was the only breadwinner of the family and he left the family in indigent circumstances. The application for compassionate appointment made by the petitioner's mother was rejected on the ground that she had not acquired the required qualification. The petitioner was the only member who was eligible to ask for appointment having regard to the age and qualification.
3.The petitioner's request for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner ought to have filed the application within a period of 3 years from the death of his father and hence his claim for compassionate appointment cannot be considered. This order is under challenge in this writ petition.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.1400 of 2011, dated 16.12.2015, wherein, in paragraphs 3 and 4, it has been held as under:
3. It is admitted fact that the employee died on 19.03.1992, leaving behind four children and at that time, the appellant is the eldest son, aged about 12 years. If he applied for appointment on compassionate ground at that time, when he was 12 years, his application would have been rejected on the ground that he was a minor and, therefore, on attaining majority, the appellant rightly applied for appointment on compassionate ground. However, taking into consideration the plight of the family and also the young age of the mother and other children, it is a case where appointment on compassionate ground has to be given. Three years limitation cannot be applied in strait-jacket formula and each and every case has to be approached differently, based on the facts. Since the eldest son of the family has rightly applied for appointment on compassionate ground, on attaining majority, the respondents have to consider the appellant's application for appointment on compassionate ground.
4. In view of the above, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge and also the order of rejection for appointment on compassionate ground are set aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh disposal, in the light of the judgment passed by this Court. Such exercise shall be completed, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs. .....
5.It is relevant to point out that the observation made in the same judgment that if the appellant applied for appointment on compassionate ground at that time, when he was 12 years, his application would have been rejected on the ground that he was a minor and, therefore, on attaining majority, the appellant rightly applied for appointment on compassionate ground. This aspect has not been considered by the respondent at all. Under such circumstances, the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P(MD)No.1400 of 2011, dated 16.12.2015 is squarely applicable to the facts of this case also.
6.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned orders of the 3rd respondent in Letter No.03924/703/NeePee.1/ ENeeOu/Koo.Vaa.Veae/2009 dated 02.03.2009, Letter No.000910/736/-/Nee.Pee.1/ E.Nee.Ou/ Koo. Vaa.Veae/2012 dated 06.02.2012 and Letter No.00096662/268/NeePee. 1/ENeeOu/Koo.Vaa.Veae/2014 dated 24.06.2014, are set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh disposal, in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.1400 of 2011, dated 16.12.2015. Such exercise shall be completed, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2014 is closed.?
40.However, on the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents mainly relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2016 (5) CTC 125 in the matter of the Inspector General of Prisons, Tiruchirapalli District, Tiruchirapalli-1 and another vs. P.Marimuthu. In the said Judgment, though it is held that the continuation of penurious or indigent situations of the family alone, is not the factor to consider by the department, while examining the request of an applicant for appointment on compassionate ground, further, it is held that, the relevant Government Orders show that the Scheme can be extended to only eligible member of the family and not to an ineligible person. It was also held in that judgment that a scheme framed by the Government had not been framed to employment assistance i.e, the son and daughter of the employee attaining majority. It was further held that, in the scheme, the department is not obliged to keep any post vacant till the applicant attain majority or to consider his candidature on attaining majority.
41.However, in the cases in hand, though the respondent Board issued B.P.NO.46, dated 13.10.1995, the same has been given relaxation by further Proceedings No.17, dated 01.11.2011. Pursuant to the proceedings dated 01.11.2011, even the rejected applications on the ground of three years rule, have been directed to be reconsidered by conducting a field enquiry as to whether still the deceased employee's family is in penurious and indigent situations, which requires a helping hand from the employer i.e., the respondent/Board to give employment opportunity to the legal heirs of the deceased employee on compassionate ground.
42.Therefore, the aforesaid Division Bench decision in the matter of The Inspector General of Prisons, Tiruchirapalli District, Tiruchirapalli-1 and another vs. P.Marimuthu [2016 5 CTC 125], holding that the scheme cannot be extended to an ineligible person and the department is not obliged to keep any post vacant till the applicant attains majority, may not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of these cases. In that case, the issue raised is, between the applicant and the Department of Prisons. Here in these cases, it is purely the scheme framed by the TANGEDCO for lending a helping hand to the legal heirs/family members of the deceased employee on compassionate ground.
43.In view of the above, the aforesaid Division Bench Judgment, though has been heavily relied upon by the respondents side, may not advance the case of the respondents, because, the cases in hand have to be dealt with only on the basis of the Scheme framed by the respondent/TANGEDCO and the modifications and clarifications to the said Scheme by way of Board proceedings issued by the respondents from time to time. Hence, the aforesaid Division Bench judgment would not advance the cause of the respondents and based on which, the respondents cannot seek any shelter to justify the rejections orders made in these writ petitions, which are impugned herein.
44.In an earlier Division Bench Judgment, in respect of the respondent department itself, reported in 2007 (6) MLJ 1011, in the matter of the Superintending Engineer Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, vs. V.Jaya, the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:
?2.1.The writ petitioner's husband died on 05.10.1999 while he was discharging his duty as a Helper in the respondent Electricity Board. She applied for appointment on compassionate ground 15.11.2000, but the same was rejected on the ground that she did not possess the minimum educational qualification, namely a pass in 8th standard. The hapless widow/the writ petitioner again applied for employment on compassionate ground, but her request was turned down once again on the same ground by the proceedings of the respondent dated 07.03.2002. The writ petitioner therefore passed 8th standard examination on private studies in December, 2004 and again applied for appointment on compassionate ground. But, the respondent, by his proceedings dated 03.06.2005, rejected the request of the writ petitioner on the ground that she had not submitted her application within three years from the date of death of her husband.
2.2.Hence, the writ petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(MD)No.1335/2006 to quash the proceedings dated 03.06.2005 and for a direction to the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in a suitable post.
3.1.The learned Single Judge, by order dated 10.08.2006, made in W.P.(MD)No.1335/2006, after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly taking note of the earlier orders of this Court relating to the appointment on compassionate ground and the order the Apex Court in SLP No.6387 of 2005, dated 04.04.2005, confirming the order of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.4008/2004, quashed the order of the respondent dated 30.06.2005 and directed the respondent to appoint the writ petitioner in a suitable post within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
.......
7.However, in a case of request for appointment on compassionate ground, however, the Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot ignore the very purpose of providing employment on compassionate ground to the dependant of an employee/government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else as it is done so in order to mitigate the hardship to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. The concept of compassionate employment is intended to alleviate the distress of the family and it is for such purpose appointments are permissible and provided even in the rules and regulations and any rigid approach or too technical objections may defeat the very object of the scheme. It is for that purpose while considering the request for compassionate appointment, the authorities are expected to act as a Good Samaritan overlooking the cobwebs of technicalities.
8.What all the Court has to look into is whether the case of the writ petitioner comes under an exception for providing appointment on compassionate ground to mitigate the hardships due to the death of the bread- winner of the family would be smashed.
9.Of course, reliance is placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in K.Ramasamy vs. T.N.E.B. - (2006) 4 MLJ 1080, where a writ of mandamus was sought for to keep on post vacant for appointment to the son of the deceased employee who is aged 11 years. In our considered opinion, the ratio laid down in the said case is not applicable to the facts of the present case set out supra.
10.But, here is the case where a widow of an employee of the respondent Board has approached the Board as early as on 15.11.2000, i.e. within 13 months from the date of death of her husband; but her request was turned down on the ground that she lacks the minimum educational qualification, namely a pass in 8th standard. Hence, she also completed her 8th standard and again renewed her request. But, this time the request was rejected on the ground that she did not apply within three years from the date of death of her husband, which necessitates this Court to interfere in the matter as the authorities obviously overlooked the very intention behind the provisions made for appointment on compassionate ground on the death of the employee concerned i.e. to enable the family to get over the sudden financial crisis -
[2004 (7) SCC 265 - Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja]. The exception to rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and it is based on the doctrine of Legitimate Expectation and it is based on the change in the status and affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned - 1994 (4) SCC - Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Others).
11.With this background, we find that the respondent had failed to adopt Good Samaritan approach ignoring the fact that she was constantly making a request for appointment to the suitable post, even if it is the lowest in the cadre, as early as from 15.11.2000 i.e. within 13 months from the date of death of her husband, which has not been dealt with in proper perspective as observed above.?
45.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of compassionate appointment in Syed Khadim Hussain V. State of Bihar [2006 (9) SCC 195] cited supra, has held as follows:
?5.We are unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the State. In the instant case, the widow had applied for appointment within the prescribed period and without assigning any reasons the same was rejected. When the appellant submitted the application he was 13 years' old and the application was rejected after a period of six years and that too without giving any reason and the reason given by the authorities was incorrect as at the time of rejection of the application he must have crossed 18 years and he could have been very well considered for appointment. Of course, in the rules framed by the State there is no specific provision as to what should be done in case the dependents are minors and there would be any relaxation of age in case they did not attain majority within the prescribed period for submitting application.
?6. As the widow had submitted the application in time the authorities should have considered her application. As eleven years have passed she would not be in a position to join the government service. In our opinion, this is a fit case where the appellant should have been considered in her place for appointment. Counsel for the State could not point out any other circumstance for which the appellant would be disentitled to be considered for appointment. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the respondent authorities to consider the application of the appellant and give him appropriate appointment within a reasonable time at least within a period of three months. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. ?
46.If the aforesaid decisions of the Courts of Law are scanned, it makes abundantly clear that, the compassionate appointment itself is an exception to the General Rule of appointment. These exceptions are given for making compassionate appointment mainly for the purpose of tide over the penurious situations and indigent circumstances where a family of the Government employee is suddenly placed because of the untimely death of the employee. In any of the Scheme, there is no provision as to how application ought to be dealt with for making compassionate appointment, when such application is made by a minor or by an adult for minor child of the deceased employee. The law would not permit an employer to appoint a minor as its employee, even though he or she, is educationally or otherwise qualified to the post. In case, if the legal heirs i.e., the son and the daughter, mainly, children with tender age are left in lurch suddenly by the death of the head of the family, who is the sole bread winner, the Society must come forward to rescue such family from the indigent circumstances. Only visualizing these situations, the Scheme of compassionate appointment is accepted or recommended as one of the method of the appointment, of course, de-hors the rule, governing the regular method of appointment in the Government or Governmental organizations. When such is the sound principle and plausible reason for allowing compassionate appointment, as has been held in a number of cases by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also by our High Court, the technicalities shall not stand in the way in making compassionate appointment.
47.Moreover, it is the settled proposition that, impossibility cannot be directed to be followed. If it is an admitted fact that at the time of death of an employee, the legal heir i.e., the son and the daughter are minors, one cannot except such minors can make applications for compassionate appointment. Assuming that, those minors are making applications for compassionate appointment, the same cannot be considered by the employer as the minors cannot be appointed. Therefore, the natural corollary would be, to wait till the minor attains the majority and if they otherwise qualified, including educational qualifications, certainly they would be entitled to compassionate appointment. Though the indigent circumstances and penurious situations are not the only criteria, as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment cited in 2016 (5) CTC 125 in the matter of the Inspector General of Prisons, Tiruchirapalli District, Tiruchirapalli-1 and another vs. P.Marimuthu, that can be the main criteria, based on which only, the compassionate appointments are made. If a family or legal heir of the deceased employee, are not in indigent circumstances or penurious situations, certainly, the employer can refuse to grant compassionate appointment. That is the reason why, the Board proceedings heavily relied upon by the respondents, i.e, B.P.No.46 dated 13.10.1995, has been relaxed by the subsequent proceedings of the respondents in Proceedings No.17, dated 01.11.2011, pursuant to which, direction was already issued to all the Superintending Engineers concerned, to reconsider those applications, which were rejected for want of fulfillment of three years rule, by making a field enquiry. The field enquiry referred to in the letter issued to the Superintending Engineers by the Chief Engineer of the respondent Department in his letter No.028610/G9/G9-1/2011-2, dated 01.11.2011, is nothing but ascertaining the situations as to whether the deceased employee's family is still in penurious situation and indigent circumstances. Therefore, these Board proceedings and the clarification letters issued by the respondent/Board, would clearly show that the penurious circumstance of the applicants alone be considered as main criteria, i.e, the reason why the Department has relaxed the three years rule. When that being the intention of the respondent Board and that is the right of the employer, in order to protect the families of the employees, who are deceased while employment, such approach is a right approach and be appreciable. In these Writ Petitions in some of the cases, the employees were died because of electrical shock or accident during the course of the employment. If the sole bread winner of the family died due to the accident while on duty, it is the foremost obligation on the part of the respondent/Board to lend maximum helping hand to lift the family from penurious circumstances. This was exactly done by the respondent/Board by issuing subsequent clarifications considering the stringent conditions of three years rule. Therefore, the respective impugned orders made in all these writ petitions except in W.P.No.4907 of 2012, in the opinion of this Court, are not in consonance with the Board proceedings and subsequent classificatory proceedings issued by the respondent Board and therefore, this Court is of the considered view that, these impugned orders are liable to be interfered with.
48.Insofar as W.P.No.4907 of 2012 is concerned, the facts of this case, cannot be compared with the facts of the other cases. The reason being that, the petitioner is the daughter of the deceased employee, who did not make any application, to seek compassionate appointment either within the three years of the date of death of the father and immediately, thereafter.
49.Though the petitioner in this writ petition claimed that she was minor at the time of her father's death on 12.07.1989, initially, her mother sought for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, there were litigations between the petitioner's mother and another woman and that was resolved only in the year 1995. Thereafter, the petitioner got married. Therefore, she could not pursue the request of the compassionate appointment. Since she got married, she had given up in pursuing the application for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, when she got divorced from her husband on 09.04.2007. Again she made an application on 12.10.2007, that was rejected by the impugned order dated 12.02.2008. Therefore, the aforesaid facts would go to show that the applicant had not been in continuing penurious situations and indigent circumstances, as she got marriage and gave birth of three children and happily lived with her husband and due to misunderstanding, the petitioner obtained divorce from her husband and thereafter, she made an application for compassionate appointment in the year 2007 i.e., after 18 years of her father's death and that was rejected by the respondent Board. Therefore, these factors would go to show that the petitioner after having given up her efforts to get compassionate appointment as she married and lived happily at least for some time, cannot wake up on one fine morning, after she got divorced, and approach the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground. Such kind of request cannot be accepted as there is no such scope under the scheme framed by the respondent department. Therefore, the said rejection order made by the respondent in W.P.No.4907 of 2012 is fully justifiable and it can be sustained.
50.For all these reasons and discussions made baove, the following orders are passed in these batch of Writ Petitions.
51.W.P.(MD).Nos.2280, 4202, 4320 and 14654 of 2012 are allowed. The respective impugned orders in these Writ Petitions are quashed.
52.W.P.(MD).Nos.5792 and 20319 of 2013 are allowed and the respective impugned orders in these Writ Petitions are quashed.
53.The respondents are directed to consider the respective applications made by the petitioners seeking for compassionate appointment and decide the same, taking into account the Board Proceedings of the respondent and the relaxation made to the said proceedings with regard to the three years rule etc., by proceedings No.17 dated 01.11.2011 and also, the law laid down by the Courts of Law in various Judgments cited above and pass suitable orders for appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
W.P.(MD).No.4907 of 2012 is dismissed as the impugned order in this Writ Petition is sustainable. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
To
1.The Chairman & Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.144, Anna Saalai, Chennai-600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer (Establishment), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.144, Anna Saalai, Chennai-600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle, Virudhunagar District.
.