Madras High Court
U.Muniappan vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 24 July, 2008
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: Elipe Dharma Rao, M.Venugopal
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24/07/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.A(MD) No.468 of 2008 U.Muniappan ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, represented by the Superintending Engineer, Sivagangai Distribution Circle, Sivagangai. ... Respondent/Respondent Prayer Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(MD)No.6349 of 2005 dated 28.09.2007. !For Appellant ... Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan ^For Respondents... Mr.Panneer Selvam for Mr.Kasinathan :JUDGMENT
M.VENUGOPAL,J This Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner as against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 28.09.2007 passed in W.P.(MD)No.6349 of 2005, in dismissing the writ petition.
2. The appellant/petitioner has filed W.P.(MD)No.6349 of 2005 praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 28.07.2004, in rejecting the request of the appellant / petitioner in seeking employment on compassionate grounds since the appellant / petitioner was above 35 years, vide Ref.K.No.12095/269/NiBil/Asst.2/Ko.Kattu/02, and quash the same and direct the respondent to appoint the appellant/petitioner on compassionate grounds to any post for which he is qualified.
3. The learned Single Judge of this Court, after referring to various case laws including the Honourable Supreme Court, in regard to the compassionate appointment, has come to the conclusion that the reply of the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Sivagangai Distribution Circle, Sivagangai. dated 28.07.2004, addressed to the appellant/petitioner, intimating that already in their letter dated 19.02.2004, the appellant/petitioner has been intimated that his request for compassionate ground appointment has been rejected in accordance with the present Board Standing Orders which have been in force, as his age was above 35 years and further that, the appellant/petitioner has also been informed that if there is any other member of the family below 35 years of age including women not being married, they shall apply for employment, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and dismissed the writ petition.
4. According to the appellant/petitioner, his father Ulaganathan was employed in the respondent Electricity Board as Line Inspector in Sivagangai and he was missing from 03.09.1990 for which an F.I.R was also registered by the Inspector of Police, Madagupatti Police Station, Sivagangai District, on 18.11.1990 under Section 174 Cr.P.C and subsequently, the police authorities issued a certificate on 22.02.1992 stating that his father remained untraceable. In the meanwhile, his mother expired on 18.09.1991 and that his elder brother Rajendran and his younger sister Rani had no objection for the appellant/petitioner seeking employment in the respondent Board as a legal heir of his father on compassionate grounds.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner contends that the learned Single Judge should have seen that the application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds was presented by the appellant/petitioner on 11.09.1992 well within three years period and that the learned Single Judge ought to have seen that the respondent Board had refused to consider the application at that point of time since seven years period from 03.09.1990 had not expired and that the appellant/petitioner was not over aged on the date of expiry of seven years period and that he was qualified to be appointed and further that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that the appellant/petitioner filed O.S.No.23 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai and the same was dismissed on technical grounds on 30.09.1999 and A.S.No.213 of 1999 was dismissed on 31.10.1992 with liberty to file a fresh suit and that the learned Single Judge must have seen that the appellant/petitioner along with his brother and sister filed O.S.No.61 of 2002 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Sivagangai, praying to declare that their father 'died', since nothing has been heard about him for more than seven years, which was decreed on 31.01.2003 and that the judgment was delivered on 31.01.2003 in O.S.No.61 of 2002 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Sivagangai and the application was made on 24.11.2003 which was well within three years and therefore, there was no delay in submitting the application which was not taken note of by the learned Single Judge and that the appellant/petitioner completed 35 years only when the first appeal in A.S.No.213 of 1999 was pending etc and in any event, the learned Single Judge should have seen that when a legal heir crosses 35 years during the pendency of the mandatory civil proceedings, he should not be disqualified on the ground of over aged and therefore, prays for allowing the appeal in the interest of justice.
6. It cannot be gainsaid that the Board's order No.131 Administrative Department - dated 19.06.1998, inter alia refers to the raising of the age limit of an individual seeking appointment on compassionate grounds from 30 to 35 years as per the Government Order No.9, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 19.01.1998 and hence, on the basis of the decision taken by the Government, for a deceased Board employees' son/unmarried daughter, daughter of destitute widow/daughter deserted by the husband, to seek employment on compassionate grounds, their age limit has been increased from 30 to 35 years and after this order, the deceased Board employee's heirs under this scheme, are entitled to get employment till they attained the age of 35 years.
7. Therefore, by the office letter dated 19.02.2004 and by order dated 28.07.2004, the appellant/petitioner has been rightly informed that his application was rejected in accordance with the present Board Standing Orders which were in force as he was above 35 years and therefore, the said orders, in our view, do not suffer from any illegality in the eye of law. Moreover, when Board order No.131 Administrative Department, dated 19.06.1998, prescribes increase in the age limit from 30 to 35 years for seeking employment on compassionate grounds and when the appellant/petitioner does not come under the scheme of the Electricity Board, then, the appellant/petitioner cannot claim the said benefit in the eye of law. As a matter of fact, it is needless to emphasize that the appointments on compassionate grounds will have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations and their administrative instructions which are in force from time to time.
8. In short, since the appellant/petitioner was not coming within the list of eligible persons for employment as Assistant as he was over aged and inasmuch as his application dated 06.07.2004 was forwarded on 09.07.2004 as seen from the impugned order dated 28.07.2004, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 28.07.2004 is in tune with the Government Orders in the matter of seeking employment on compassionate ground and therefore, the pleas of the appellant/petitioner seeking the aid of civil Court's decree dated 31.01.2003 passed in O.S.No.61 of 2002 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Sivagangai and earlier, the suit O.S.No.23 of 1999 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Sivagangai, being dismissed on 30.09.1999 on technical grounds and A.S.No.213 of 1999 being dismissed on 31.10.1992, are all of no avail to him, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also as per the age limit of 35 years prescribed by the Board's order No.131 Administrative Department dated 19.06.1998, of the respondent Board.
9. As a matter of fact, since the appellant/petitioner projected applications seeking appointment on compassionate grounds after the period prescribed as per the Board's order No.131 Administrative Department dated 19.06.1998, the request of the petitioner cannot be acceded to in the eye of law, in the considered opinion of this Court.
10. In fact, for the application made by the appellant/petitioner dated 11.09.1992, the Superintending Engineer, Ramnad Electricity Distribution Circle, Sivagangai, has sent a reply dated 26.10.1992 inter alia stating that as per the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Rules, etc., if an employee while in service, has disappeared or died, the same has to be confirmed after a period of seven years and therefore, his application praying for appointment on compassionate ground, cannot be considered for the present.
11. Suffice it to state that since a reply dated 26.10.1992 has been furnished by the respondent's Superintending Engineer, Ramnad Electricity Distribution Circle, Sivagangai, to the appellant/petitioner, the appellant/petitioner cannot take advantage of the application dated 11.09.1992 projected by him, to suit his own needs in order to make out a case that he is well within a period of three years since 03.09.1990, etc. It is to be emphasised that instructions/rules governing appointments on compassionate grounds of the respondent Board, will have to be construed strictly and the instructions cannot circumvent and supplant in any manner.
12. Likewise, the appellant/petitioner cannot take amperage of the Civil Court's decree passed in O.S.No.61 of 2002 dated 31.01.2003 by the learned District Munsif Court, Sivagangai, so as to make out a case that the application for appointment on compassionate grounds was made on 24.11.2003, within three years as projected by the appellant in his appeal grounds.
13. We opine that time taken in regard to the completion of civil litigation, by no stretch of imagination will enure to the benefit of the appellant/petitioner, when the Board's order No.131 Administrative Department dated 19.06.1998, prescribes a maximum age limit of 35 years for availing the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds as heir of the deceased employee of the respondent Board.
14. Looking at from any angle, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P(MD)No.6349 of 2005 dated 28.09.2007, in not acceding to the request of the appellant/petitioner in regard to his plea of seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, is a reasoned one and the same cannot be interfered with and therefore, the writ appeal fails and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed in the interest of justice. Resultantly, the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(MD)No.6349 of 2005 dated 28.09.2007, is hereby affirmed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
rsb To The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Sivagangai Distribution Circle, Sivagangai.