Madras High Court
R. Soundar vs The Chairman on 5 August, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.8912 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.(MD) No.8912 of 2018
and
WMP(MD).No.8311 of 2018
R. Soundar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer/Personnel,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Chennai – 600 002.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Pudukottai Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Pudukottai – 622 001.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in
Ka.No.08804/001/Ni Pi 1/Uthavi 4/ Ko. Va. Ve/2016 -1 dated 09.11.2016
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8912 of 2018
and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to provide
employment to the petitioner in the services of Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Ltd., (Tamilnadu Electricity Board) on
compassionate grounds based on the Educational Qualification within the
stipulated time.
For Petitioner : Mr. M. Saravanakumar
For Respondents : Mr. T. Sakthi Kumaran
Standing Counsel
ORDER
The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of
certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 09.11.2016, passed
by the third respondent and to direct the respondents to consider the
case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.
2. The case of the petitioner is that his father was working as
Commercial Assistant in the Office of the Assistant Engineer (Special
Maintenance), Pudukkottai Electricity Distribution Circle, who died on
20.09.1997, while he was service. At the time of death of his father,
the petitioner was minor. On attaining majority, he submitted an
application on 26.09.2016 to the third respondent, particularly based
on his educational qualification. However, impugned order was passed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8912 of 2018
by the third respondent rejecting the said claim of the petitioner.
Hence, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition before this Court.
3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents
would submit that the aforesaid decision was taken by the third
respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the
petitioner has not fulfilled the requirements prescribed for appointment
on compassionate ground, relying on the various decisions of Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as this court wherein it was categorically held
that there could be any relaxation of time to consider the applications
for appointment on compassionate grounds, submitted beyond the
period of three years from the date of death of the employee.
4. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on
record.
5. Identical issue came up before the Honourable Division Bench
of this Court in W.A.No.1749 of 2019 (Sudhanthira Devi vs. The
State of Tamil Nadu and others) [in the said Judgment, myself
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8912 of 2018
(DKKJ) is one of the member] and the Division Bench, by Judgment
dated 03.09.2019, following the decisions of the Honourable Supreme
Court, has held that applications for compassionate appointment
submitted beyond the period of three years cannot be entertained.
6. In Government of India and another v. P.Venkatesh
[(2019) 15 SCC 613], the Honourable Supreme Court has held as
follows:
“8. This ‘dispose of the representation’
mantra is increasingly permeating the judicial
process in the High Courts and the Tribunals.
Such orders may make for a quick or easy
disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory
institutions. But, they do no service to the
cause of justice. The litigant is back again
before the Court, as this case shows, having
incurred attendant costs and suffered delays of
the legal process. This would have been
obviated by calling for a counter in the first
instance, thereby resulting in finality to the
dispute. By the time, the High Court issued its
direction on 9-8- 2016, nearly twenty one years
had elapsed since the date of the death of the
employee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8912 of 2018
9. ...
10. Bearing in mind the above principles,
this Court held: (Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State
of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138) SCC pp.141-42,
para 6)
“6. For these very reasons, the
compassionate employment cannot be
granted after a lapse of a reasonable
period which must be specified in the
rules. The consideration for such
employment is not a vested right which
can be exercised at any time in future.
The object being to enable the family to
get over the financial crisis which it faces
at the time of the death of the sole
breadwinner, the compassionate
employment cannot be claimed and
offered whatever the lapse of time and
after the crisis is over.”
7. The Honourable Full Bench in Paragraph No.13 of the
Judgment dated 11.03.2020 in W.P.(MD) No.7016 of 2011 has
held as follows:
“13. In the light of the above we find that
the judgment in the case of A.Kamatchi v. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8912 of 2018
Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (2013)
2 CWC 758 is not only contrary to the law laid
down in the case of E.Ramasamy v. The
Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (2006)
4 MLJ 1080, but it also has, as indicated by our
brother, Justice Subramonium Prasad, in his
judgment, misconstrued the same. In view of
what has been indicated above we are also of
the view that the period of three years is a
rationale and reasonable period under the
relevant Government Orders and the rules. We
may, however, observe that it is open to the
State Government to make any provision for
relaxation of the period in exceptionally rare
cases on the principles as indicated herein
above.”
8. Furthermore, G.O.(Ms) No.18, Labour and Employment
(Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020, has clearly prescribed the time
limit to prefer application for compassionate appointment as three
years from the date of death of the Government servants.
9. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner's father
died on 28.07.2003 and the writ petitioner has submitted his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8912 of 2018
application for compassionate appointment only on 26.09.2016, nearly
after thirteen years. Therefore, in view of the above settled legal
position, the claim of the petitioner made beyond the prescribed period
of three years cannot be entertained and it deserves to be rejected.
Accordingly, the impugned order does not warrant any interference of
this Court.
10. In fine, the writ petition fails and the same is
dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
No costs.
05.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes /No
mnr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8912 of 2018
To
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer/Personnel,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Chennai – 600 002.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Pudukottai Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Pudukottai – 622 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8912 of 2018
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
mnr
W.P.(MD) No.8912 of 2018
and
WMP(MD).No.8311 of 2018
05.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
