Madras High Court
R.Vijayakumar vs The Chairman on 10 August, 2021
W.P(MD)No.12271 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.12271 of 2018
and
W.M.P(MD)No.11158 of 2018
R.Vijayakumar ... 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 and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to
call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.P(MD)No.12271 of 2018
respondent in Ka.No.09588/Ni A/Ni Pi 1/U4/Ko. Ka 2017/dated
23.10.2017 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., (Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board) on compassionate grounds based on the educational qualification.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanakumar
For Respondents : Mr.T.Sakthikumaran
Standing Counsel
ORDER
The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of
certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 23.10.2017, 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
Wireman in the respondent Electricity Board and he died on 16.07.2006,
while he was in service. Since the petitioner was minor at the time of
death of his father, after completion of his Diploma in Electrical and
Electronics Engineering, he made an application on 11.10.2017, seeking
compassionate appointment. However, the request of the petitioner was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.12271 of 2018
rejected on the ground that the application was not made within the
prescribed period of three years. Challenging the same, the present writ
petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
at the time of death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner was minor
and therefore, he could not submit application, however, after attaining
the majority and also completing Diploma in Electrical and Electronics
Engineering, he submitted an application on 11.10.2017. The learned
counsel further submitted that since the petitioner's family is in indigent
circumstances after the death of the sole breadwinner, the petitioner's
case may be considered for compassionate appointment.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents
Electricity Board submitted that as per the proceedings of the Electricity
Board in (Per.) FB TANGEDCO Proceedings No.11, dated 11.06.2020,
the time limit to prefer application for compassionate appointment is
three years from the date of death of the employee. But, the petitioner
herein submitted application after a lapse of 11 years and 03 months and
hence, the third respondent has rightly rejected the petitioner's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.12271 of 2018
application for compassionate appointment.
5. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
6. 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 (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.
7. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.12271 of 2018
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.
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.”
8. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.12271 of 2018
follows:
“13. In the light of the above we find
that the judgment in the case of A.Kamatchi v.
The 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.”
9. Furthermore, the proceedings of the respondent Electricity
Board in (Per.) FB TANGEDCO Proceedings No.11, dated 11.06.2020,
has clearly prescribed the time limit to prefer application for
compassionate appointment as three years from the date of death of the
Government servants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.12271 of 2018
10. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner's father died on
16.07.2006 and the petitioner submitted application for compassionate
appointment only on 11.10.2017, nearly after nine 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.
11. In fine, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.08.2021
vsm
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.12271 of 2018
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
vsm
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 and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Chennai – 600 001.
W.P(MD)No.12271 of 2018
10.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
