Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The father of the respondent, who was working as Wireman/Lineman under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board/ first appellant herein, died in harness on 20.10.999 leaving behind him the respondent, his elder brother, his mother and two daughters. The respondent was 14 years of age and was studying 8th standard at the time of his fathers death. The respondent made an application on 18.11.2000 for appointment on compassionate ground. The appellant/Board declined the request made by the respondent for appointment in the first appellant/Board on the ground that he had not completed 18 years of age. The respondent attained majority on 10.04.2003. He made another representation on 23.9.2003 to the Board requesting for compassionate appointment, which was rejected by the Board vide order dated 07.11.2003. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed W.P.No.17640 of 2004 seeking a direction to the appellant/Board to provide compassionate employment to the respondent. The learned single Judge following the earlier decision of this Court in Meer Ismail Ali.T v. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2004 (3) CTC 120) held that the application made by the respondent on attaining majority is maintainable, and consequently issued direction to the appellant/Board to consider the application of the respondent within a period of six weeks.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of the deceased/employee, contended that in cases of legal heirs of the deceased employee being minor, fairness demands that such persons should be allowed to make application after attaining majority. Heavy reliance was placed on the unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.3050 of 2003 dated 08.03.2005 (Indiraniammal v. The Chief Engineer (Personnel), The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai  600 002 and another). According to the learned counsel, the Division Bench in the aforesaid case has held that it is open for the legal heirs of the deceased employee to make an application after attaining majority and there is nothing in the rule, which precludes the consideration of such application and therefore, the rejection of the request of the heirs of the deceased employee is clearly contrary to law and further held that the learned single Judge has rightly intervened in the matter and directed the Board to decide the application made by the legal heirs of the deceased employee on merits.

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//

6. It appears that earlier there was a provision that if the applicant is a minor, he had to make an application after attaining majority and the fresh application after attaining majority would be considered based on the Rules of the Board applicable on that day. By Circular dated 06.04.2002 in 040574/G8/G82/2002-1 the above provision was deleted, and as per the amended G.O the outer limit for filing application for employment on compassionate grounds is three years from the date of death of the employee.

18. Coming to the facts of W.A.No.336 of 2003, it is seen that the father of the appellant died on 22.01.1994, and the application for compassionate appointment was made by the appellant only in the year 2002 after attaining majority, which was obviously beyond the period prescribed under the scheme. In W.A.No.997of 2006, the application was made by the respondent within three years, but at that time he was a minor, and therefore the application was not maintainable. The respondent attained majority only in the year 2003 and thereafter he made the second application, which was also rejected by the Board as the same was filed beyond three years time. Similarly in W.A.No.1006/2006, the application for compassionate appointment was made by the respondent when he was a minor and was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Board. A fresh application was made only in the year 2005, which was beyond the period of three years. Consequently, the Board rejected the application as it was filed beyond the prescribed period of three years. Thus in none of these cases the applications were made within three years period as prescribed by the scheme. Under the circumstances, the Board was justified in rejecting the request for compassionate appointment.