Madras High Court
Muthulnagammal vs The Superintendent Engineer on 1 December, 2009
Author: N.Kirubakaran
Bench: N.Kirubakaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:1.12.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN Writ Petition No.36578 of 2003 --- Muthulnagammal ... Petitioner Vs. The Superintendent Engineer, Dindugul Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board(TNEB), Meenakshi Nayakan Patti, Angu Nagar, SS Campus, Dindugul-624 002. .. Respondents This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to impugned letter dated 6.2.2003 bearing No.f/vz;/016626- nkghbgh-jpkpgt-jpfy;-ep/gp/1-cjtp/4-nfh/th/nt/2003/ ehs; 06-02-03 issued by the respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's representations dated 25.5.1998,24.01.2002 and 10.01.2003 to the respondent in seeking employment to the petitioner's son M.Nagarajan on compassionate grounds. For petitioners : Mr.C.P.Sivamohan For respondents : Mrs.Sharmila Prakasam for Mr.M.Vaidyanathan O R D E R
The petitioner has come before this court challenging the rejection of her claim for compassionate appointment of her son in the respondent Board.
2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband N.Marimuthu died in harness on 11.12.1997 and that the demise of her husband caused mental agony and financial problem to her family and she is unable to meet family requirements. Hence the petitioner made a representation on 25.5.1998 and subsequently another application dated 24.1.2002 and finally a third representation dated 10.1.2003 to the respondent. The respondent board by virtue of impugned order rejected the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment, relying upon the rule that the application should be made within three years from the date of death of the employee. The said impugned order is challenged before this court.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed stating that the petitioner's husband died on 11.12.1997 and the petitioner's son M.Nagarajan made representations dated 21.8.2001,7.9.2002 and finally on 10.1.2003. As per B.P.No.46, on 13.10.1995, application for appointment on compassionate ground should be made within three years from the date of death of the employee. As the application was made beyond three years from the date of the employee, it was rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had made representations on 25.5.1998, 24.1.2002 and 10.1.2003. However the impugned order does not disclose the representation dated 24.1.2002, even though there is an acknowledgement by the respondent. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a rule in the proceedings issued by the Electricity Board dated 14.6.1997, which enables the Electricity Board to make appointment of the family members of the employees who died in harness within three years from the date of their attaining majority, if they are minor. Learned counsel also relied upon a judgement of a Division Bench of this court in Tmt.T.Rajamani versus The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800 Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002 and two others reported in 2007 WLR 309 and in Chief Engineer/Personal, Tamilnadu Electricity Board and others vs. P.Venkatesan reported in CDJ LJ dated 2.7.2009 to support his claim that even after three years, the application for appointment on compassionate ground can be considered.
5. Learned counsel for the Electricity Board Miss.Shyamala for Mr.Vaidyanathan submitted that the said Electricity Board order dated 14.6.1997 was cancelled on 6.4.2002 and in view of that the applications which are received within three years from the date of death of the employee alone would be considered and based on that ground only the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel also relied upon a Division Bench judgement of this court passed in E.Ramasami vs. Tamilnadu Electricity Board represented by its Chairman, Chennai-600 002 and others reported in (2006) 4 MLJ 1080, wherein it was held that appointment of a member of the family of the deceased employee could be made on compassionate grounds provided, it is within the frame work of the rules and regulations therein.
6. In this case admittedly the employee died on 11.12.1997. The circular dated 14.6.1997 which enables the Electricity Board to give compassionate appointment from the members of the deceased family within three years from the date of attaining majority. On the date of death of the employee, the circular dated 14.6.1997 was in force. According to the petitioner, she made representation on 25.5.1998 within six months from the date of death of the employee on 11.12.1997. However the same is denied by the respondent. The second representation was made on 24.1.2002 and for which the acknowledgement signed by the Additional Chief Engineer, Dindigul, Electricity Board Distribution Circle has been filed before this court. Hence the respondent cannot say that the said representation was not received. In any event the respondent admitted the receipt of other representations dated 21.8.2001,7.9.2002 and 10.1.2003. The circular dated 14.6.1997 was cancelled only on 6.4.2002, whereas admittedly the petitioner made representations on 21.8.2001, 7.9.2002 and 24.1.2002 and when the representations were made the said circular was in force. Having received the representations dated 21.8.2001,7.9.2002, 24.1.2002 and 10.1.2003 the respondent cannot keep quiet without passing any order. The respondent passed an order only on the representations dated 10.1.2003 on 6.2.2003.
7. When the employee died on 11.12.1997 and when the representations for compassionate appointment were made on 21.8.2001, 24.1.2002 and 7.9.2002, the circular dated 14.6.1997 was in force. When the circular was in force, the respondent should have given the benefit to the petitioner and ought to have decided the petitioner' claim based on the circular dated 14.6.1997 and ought to have given compassionate appointment to her son. Without passing any order on the representations dated 21.8.2001, 7.9.2002 and 24.1.2002, the respondent cannot reject the petitioner's claim, only on the representation dated 10.1.2003, observing that the representation for appointment was made belatedly after three years. Every representation which has been made should be decided based on the rule which was in force at the time of presentation of the representation, especially when the petitioner claim is eligible as per circular dated 14.6.1997.
8. An another significant factor is that by virtue of B.P.(F.B.) No.46, dated 14.06.1997, three years limitation for application for compassionate appointment was relaxed and the dependent of the employee is permitted to apply for compassionate appointment within three years from the date of attaining majority, if the defendant was minor. That concession was taken away by memo dated 6.4.2002, which was challenged before this court and the Division Bench of this court on 8.3.2005 in Indiraniammal v. Chief Engineer (Personnel) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in W.P.No.3050 of 2003 set aside the withdrawal memo dated 6.4.2002. Therefore, the concession given by memo dated 14.6.1997 is restored as on date and petitioner's case will be covered by the memo. Eventhough SLP is pending before the Honourable Supreme Court of India challenging the Division Bench judgement passed in W.P.No.3050 of 2003 and no stay was granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
9. In that event the order passed on 6.2.2003 is liable to be quashed. The circular dated 14.6.1997, enables the Electricity Board to receive the application even after three years from the date of the death of the employee. By way of interim orders dated 7.7.2009 the petitioner was granted permission to move the authority and explain the indigent circumstances to seek employment on compassionate ground. She appeared on 20.11.2009 and her claim was rejected by the respondent contending that the application was made beyond three years from the date of death of the employee. In view of the reasoning given above, the rejection order dated 20.11.2009 is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. This court has got jurisdiction to mould the prayer, and quashes not only the impugned order but also the subsequent order passed thereon. As the orders are quashed as stated above, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders, granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner's son without reference to B.P.No.46 dated 13.10.1995 and memo dated 6.4.2002 within four weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.
10. The writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs.
vk To The Superintendent Engineer, Dindugul Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board(TNEB), Meenakshi Nayakan Patti, Angu Nagar, SS Campus, Dindugul 624 002