Madras High Court
V.K.Ramesh vs The Superintending Engineer on 11 March, 2011
Author: V.Dhanapalan
Bench: V.Dhanapalan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.03.2011 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN W.P.No.7314 of 2004 V.K.Ramesh ... Petitioner vs.
1. The Superintending Engineer, Vellore Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Gandhi Nagar, Vellore - 632 006.
2. The Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings made in Letter No.013690/233/Ni.Pi.3/Vu.4/2001 dated 07.05.2001 quash the same and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in a suitable post on compassionate grounds.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy For Respondents : Mr.B.Kumar, TNEB O R D E R Heard Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.B.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/TNEB.
2. Challenging the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 07.05.2001, seeking to quash the same and for a direction to the respondents to appoint him in a suitable post on compassionate grounds, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Brief facts of the case as set out in the affidavit would run thus :
(i) The petitioner's father Mr.V.Krishnamurthy was working as Accounts Assistant in the office of the Executive Engineer, Revenue Branch, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Katpadi (Vellore) and died while in service on 11.05.1996. At that time, the petitioner passed Plus Two. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application to the 2nd respondent on 15.01.1997 for an appointment on compassionate grounds. On 15.04.1998, the 1st respondent wrote to the petitioner to submit certain documents namely, (i) Death Certificate of his father (ii) Educational Certificate (iii) No Objection Certificate from other family members for giving appointment to him (iv) A copy of the proceedings from the 1st respondent sanctioning payment of Death Relief benefits of his father and (v) a copy of Court order regarding Succession Certificate.
(ii) The petitioner would state that this father had two wives. His mother K.Kalaiselvi @ Kalaivani is the 2nd wife and K.Sugunambal is the 1st wife. Through the 1st wife, his father had five children and through the 2nd wife, he had two children. Both the family members made a joint application for the payment of Death cum Retirement Gratuity, etc. benefits from the respondents' Board. Since the 1st respondent required a succession certificate from the Judicial Forum, the petitioner and other legal heirs of his father preferred a petition before the Sub-Court, Vellore in S.O.P.No.68 of 1997.
(iii) On 07.11.1997, the Sub-Court issued a certificate declaring his father's 1st wife and her children and his 2nd wife and her children as legal heirs of his father and granted a Certificate to that effect, stating that they are entitled to succeed to his estate and entitled to claim the amount from the respondent Board. They produced the certificate before the 1st respondent and on 30.12.1999, the 1st respondent in his proceedings No.764/49294/Adm.2/A3/99 passed an order sanctioning the amount and computing the amount to be payable to each of the legal heirs.
(iv) In the meanwhile, the 1st wife of his father and her children and the petitioner's family members gave a no objection letter on 10.09.1999 to the 1st respondent for providing a job to the petitioner on compassionate ground in the respondent Board. According to the petitioner, his family is leading life in a poor condition and they do not have any specific income. His mother is doing cooly work and earning a sum of Rs.600/- per month, which is also not permanent.
(v) The petitioner would further state that in continuation of his application dated 15.01.1997 and as per the direction of the 1st respondent, the petitioner sent all the certificates on 15.03.2000 to the 1st respondent for appointment. However, the 1st respondent rejected the petitioner's application on 07.05.2001 on the ground that his application is belated. Thereafter, the petitioner sent an appeal to the 2nd respondent on 19.09.2001 and a reminder on 03.07.2002 for considering his case for appointment in the respondents' Board on compassionate grounds. However, no order was passed on his appeal by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this court.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. It is stated therein that the petitioner's father Mr.V.Krishnamurthy was employed in TNEB as Accounts Assistant in the office of the Executive Engineer, Revenue Branch, Katpadi and died on 11.05.1996 while in service. The petitioner sent a letter dated 15.01.1997 to the 1st respondent on 17.01.1997 requesting to consider employment assistance on compassionate grounds duly enclosing the educational qualification certificates. On receipt of the letter, the 1st respondent sent a letter to the petitioner's mother, duly enclosing the specimen application form (Appendix-I) for seeking employment assistance on compassionate grounds with a request to return the application form duly filled in along with the relevant records, i.e. death & legal heir certificates and other certificates obtained from the Revenue Officials for taking further action vide letter dated 25.04.1998. The petitioner re-submitted the application form (Annexure I) for seeking employment assistance on compassionate grounds along with the relevant records on 15.03.2000 only after a lapse of 3 years from the date of death of the Board employee.
4a. The respondents would state that as per the instructions issued in per (BP) Ms. (FB) No.46, dated 13.10.1995,
(i) The application in the prescribed format 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 is raised to 50 (fifty) years in the case of widows of the deceased employees of the Board.
(iii) In the case of already expired staff while in service the dependant should apply for employment assistance within three years from the date of issue of the order.
4b. The respondents would further submit that the petitioner's father died on 11.05.1996 and the petitioner submitted the application in the prescribed format (Annexure I) seeking employment assistance on 15.03.2000 only after expiry of the prescribed time limit. Even though the petitioner got Succession Certificate from the Sub Court, Vellore during 07.11.1997, he had failed to submit the application form immediately, i.e. within a period of three (3) years from the date of death of employee of the Board. But, he had submitted the application after expiry of 3 years period. Therefore, the 1st respondent had rightly rejected the petitioner's application on 07.05.2001.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner preferred an application on compassionate ground on 15.01.1997 well within the prescribed period of three years from his father's death on 11.05.1996. He would contend that the 1st respondent took more than a year to direct the petitioner to produce some documents and that the petitioner applied for Succession Certificate and the Sub-Court, Vellore passed an order on 07.11.1997 and based on the same, the 1st respondent passed an order on 30.12.1999 sanctioning death cum retirement, gratuity, etc. payments. Therefore, there is no delay on the part of the petitioner in producing the required documents. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that in spite of producing all the required certificates including the No Objection Certificate from other legal heirs for getting Compassionate Appointment in the respondents' Board, the petitioner's claim is so far not considered by the respondents.
5a. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following :
(i) a Supreme Court decision reported in (2006) 9 SCC 195 in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain vs. State of Bihar and others "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 dependants 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."
(ii) a decision of this court reported in (2010) 7 MLJ 644 in the case of M.Uma vs. Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and another "13. Though the learned single Judge while rejecting the request of the petitioner relied on judgment of one of us (PSJ) made in W.P.No.14134 of 1991 dated 25.01.1999 and the case of Union of India vs. Bhagwan Singh (1995) 6 SCC 476 as well as the case of State of U.P. vs. Parasnath 1998 (2) SCC 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 2000 (3) LLN 625, learned single Judge of this court (PSJ) in similar circumstances 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. "
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board would contend that the petitioner submitted the application for compassionate appointment in the prescribed format on 15.03.2000 only after the expiry of the prescribed time limit and therefore, the 1st respondent had rightly rejected the petitioner's application on 07.05.2001.
7. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused relevant materials on record.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner's father was employed with the respondent Board as Accounts Assistant and died in harness on 11.05.1996. At that time, the petitioner passed plus two. On 15.01.1997, the petitioner preferred an application to the 2nd respondent for an appointment on compassionate grounds. On receipt of the same, the 1st respondent sent a letter to the petitioner's mother duly enclosing the specimen application form (Appendix-I) seeking employment assistance on compassionate ground with a request to return the application form duly filled in along with the relevant records, i.e. Death and Legal Heir Certificates and other certificates obtained from the Revenue officials for taking further action.
9. The only objection raised by the respondent Board is that the petitioner submitted the application seeking compassionate appointment in the prescribed format only on 15.03.2000, after expiry of the prescribed time limit and hence, the 1st respondent rejected the petitioner's application.
10. It is seen that the petitioner, after attaining majority, had applied to the 1st respondent seeking employment on compassionate ground on 15.01.1997 well within the prescribed time of 3 years from his father's death. A perusal of the materials on record would show that the petitioner and other legal heirs of his father preferred a petition before the Sub-Court, Vellore in S.O.P.No.68 of 1997 and the Legal Heir Certificate was issued on 07.11.1997. On production of the said certificate before the 1st respondent, by proceedings dated 30.12.1999, the 1st respondent passed an order sanctioning the amount payable to each of the legal heirs. Thereafter, as per the direction of the 1st respondent, the petitioner sent all the certificates to the 1st respondent for appointment on 15.03.2000. However, the 1st respondent rejected the petitioner's application on 07.05.2001 on the ground that his application is belated. But, the fact remains clear that the petitioner has made an application for compassionate appointment on 15.01.1997 itself well within the prescribed time limit of 3 years from his father's death. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be faulted with, that he has sent the application belatedly.
11. The purpose of providing employment to a dependant of a government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while in service. In the case of Syed Khadim Hussain vs. State of Bihar and others (referred to supra), the Supreme Court has allowed the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Further, in the case of Balbir Kaur vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2000 (6) SCC 493), the legal proposition laid down by the Supreme Court is that in the case of appointment, considering the social and economic justice as enshrined in the Constitution, denial of deserving cases are liable to be set aside. In a similar circumstance, in the case of M.Uma vs. Chief Engineer (Personnel), TNEB, Chennai, (2010) 7 MLJ 644, wherein the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that she has not submitted the same within three years, this court, taking into account the indigent circumstances of the family directed the respondents therein to consider the claim of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment without reference to the objection raised in the impugned order. Also, in the case of G.Vijayaraghavan vs. General Manager (P) Indian Bank (2000 (3) LLN 625), the principle laid down by this court is that irrespective of settlement of full term service, gratuity and other benefits, the eligible person can claim appointment on compassionate grounds.
12. In view of the legal propositions laid down in the decisions referred to supra and considering the fact that the petitioner has preferred an application for compassionate appointment well within the prescribed time, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment cannot be denied and that the petitioner can be accommodated in any suitable post as per his qualification. Therefore, the impugned order dated 07.05.2001 passed by the 1st respondent is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in any suitable post and pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
abe To :
1. The Superintending Engineer, Vellore Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Gandhi Nagar, Vellore - 632 006.
2. The Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002