Madras High Court
B.Vignesh vs The Chief Engineer on 25 August, 2021
W.P(MD)No.18261 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.18261 of 2020
B.Vignesh, ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chief Engineer,
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
5-A Block, Electricity Avenue,
144, Anna salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu General and Distribution Corporation Ltd,
Virudhunagar Distribution Circle,
Virudhunagar. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records pertaining to the impugned Rejection letters LrNo.057529/289/G.9/G.
91/Cont.53/2019 dated 12.05.2020 and Lr.No.7231/NP.2/Assisit.
2/Compassionate Appt/2020, dated 18.06.2020 passed by the respondents 1 and
2 and quash the same and direct the respondents to provide compassionate
appointment to the petitioner
For Petitioner : Mr.Lakshmi Gopinathan, for M/S.Polax
Legal Solutions
For Respondents : Mr.T.Sakthikumaran, Standing counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/9
W.P(MD)No.18261 of 2020
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned
Rejection letters LrNo.057529/289/G.9/G.91/Cont.53/2019 dated 12.05.2020
and Lr.No.7231/NP.2/Assisit.2/Compassionate Appt/2020, dated 18.06.2020
passed by the respondents 1 and 2 and quash the same and direct the
respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final
disposal at the admission stage itself.
4. According to the petitioner, his father, Late Bose, while working as
Wireman in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Virudhunagar Distribution
Circle, Kariapatti South Division, died in harness on 06.10.2014 and at that
time, the petitioner was a minor. On 29.07.2015, the petitioner applied for
compassionate appointment and it was rejected by the 2nd respondent on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.18261 of 2020
29.07.2015. He became major on 10.05.2018 and once again, he made an
application on 14.05.2018 and since, it was not considered, the petitioner filed
a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.13513 of 2018, which was disposed of by this
Court, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and
dispose of the same on merits. Pursuant to the same, again the petitioner made
a representation on 23.07.2018 along with a copy of the order. The 1st
respondent, vide his impugned letter dated 12.05.2020, again rejected the claim
of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not completed 18 years of
age within three years from the date of death of the petitioner's father.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ
petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
1st respondent, without application of mind, has mechanically rejected the claim
of the petitioner. He pointed out that though the earlier applications were
rejected on the ground that the petitioner was minor, however, on attaining the
majority, the petitioner made an application, even then also, the 1st respondent
rejected the same by impugned order, which is liable to be set aside.
6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.18261 of 2020
oppose the writ petition on the ground that earlier, by order dated 29.07.2015,
the 2nd respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner and it has not been
challenged by the petitioner and hence, it has become final. Even the present
impugned order was passed by the 1st respondent in view of the fact that the
application was belatedly made beyond the prescribed three years period.
Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Admittedly, when his father died on 06.10.2014, the petitioner was a
minor and was not eligible for appointment. The petitioner made applications
which were rejected on the ground that he was a minor. Later, attaining the
majority, the petitioner made a representation on 23.07.2018, which was also
rejected on the ground that it was made beyond the prescribed time limit of 3
years. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer a decision of this Court in
“A.Venkatesan versus The Chairman, TNEB, Chennai and another” in W.P.No.
33500 of 2014, dated 11.10.2018, wherein, it has been observed as under:
“4. This Court is of an opinion that the compassionate
appointment is a special scheme and the scheme of
compassionate appointment was introduced to mitigate the
penurious circumstances arising on account of the sudden death
of the Government employee. Thus, the scheme of
compassionate appointment must be extended to the legal heirs
of the deceased employee to protect their livelihood,
immediately after the death of the deceased employee. Thus,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.18261 of 2020
the appointment to be granted on compassionate grounds
within a reasonable period of three years or atleast within a
period of five years. Beyond that, legal presumption would
be that the penurious circumstances arising on account of
the sudden death of the Government employee became
vanished. It is not as if the compassionate appointment can
be claimed as a matter of right to provide one appointment
to one family of the deceased Government employee. Such a
scheme can never be accepted, in view of the fact that the
scheme of appointment itself, is in violation of Article 14 and
16 of the Constitution of India. The scheme being a special one
was introduced in violation of the constitutional principles.
Therefore, the same must be implemented strictly in accordance
with the terms and conditions. ....”
7. In fact, there cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the
petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there is some
specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that
the family gets immediate relief. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer to a
decision reported in "State of Manipur vs. Md. Rajaodin" {(2003) 7 SCC
511}, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 11 of its judgment,
held as under:-
“In Smt. Sushma Gosain and others vs. Union of India and
others (1989 (4) SCC 468) it was observed that in all claims of
appointments on compassionate grounds, there should not be any
delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on
compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of
the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.18261 of 2020
therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress.
The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father
is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specifically
otherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he
can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit. The
above view was re-iterated in Phoolwati (Smt.) vs. Union of India
and others (1991) Supp. (2) SCC 689) and Union of India and
others vs. Bhagwan Singh (1995 (6) SCC 476). In Director of
Education (Secondary) and Anr. vs. Pushpendra Kumar and others
(1998 (5) SCC 192) it was observed that in matter of
compassionate appointment there cannot be insistence for a
particular post. Out of purely humanitarian consideration and
having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is
provided the family would not be able to make both ends, meet,
provisions are made for giving appointment to one of the
dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for appointment.
Care has, however, to be taken that provision for ground of
compassionate employment which is in the nature of an exception
to the general provisions does not unduly interfere with the right of
those other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek
appointment against the post which would have been available, but
for the provision enabling appointment being made on
compassionate grounds of the dependent of the deceased employee.
As it is in the nature of exception to the general provisions it cannot
substitute the provision to which it is an exception and there nullity
the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred
by the main provision.”
8. Therefore, the scheme of providing compassionate appointment can be
extended only to eligible member of the family and not to an ineligible person.
Scheme has not been framed to provide employment assistance as and when the
son or daughter of the deceased employee attains majority. Under the scheme,
the department is not obligated to keep any post vacant, till the applicant attains
majority or to consider his candidature on attaining majority. Scheme only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.18261 of 2020
enables those who are eligible and satisfy all the eligibility criteria including
age, within three years from the date of death.
9. In the light of the above decisions supra, no relief can be granted be
granted as there is no illegality in the impugned letters LrNo.057529/289/G.
9/G.91/Cont.53/2019 dated 12.05.2020 and Lr.No.7231/NP.2/Assisit.
2/Compassionate Appt/2020, dated 18.06.2020 of the respondents 1 and 2.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
25.08.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
dn
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.18261 of 2020
To:
1.The Chief Engineer,
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
5-A Block, Electricity Avenue,
144, Anna salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu General and Distribution Corporation Ltd,
Virudhunagar Distribution Circle,
Virudhunagar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.18261 of 2020
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
dn
W.P(MD)No.18261 of 2020
25.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
