Madras High Court
K.Kannan vs The Chief Engineer(Personnel) on 31 August, 2021
WP(MD) No. 9794 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :31.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
WP(MD) No. 9794 of 2020
K.Kannan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Chief Engineer(Personnel),
TANGEDCO,
Annasalai, Chennai.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
Tanjavur Electric Distribution Circle,
No.1, Vallam Road,
Tanjavur. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the
order of the second respondent rejecting the application of the Petitioner
seeking compassionate appointment, passed in Ka.No.10916/Ni.Pi.3/Ni.Uh.
2/Ko.Va.Ve/2019, dated 14.11.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr. N.Sundaresan.
For Respondents : Mr. T.Sakthikumaran
standing counsel.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP(MD) No. 9794 of 2020
ORDER
The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of
certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent,
rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking compassionate
appointment, passed in Ka.No.10916/Ni.Pi.3/Ni.Uh.2/Ko.Va.Ve/2019,
dated 14.11.2019.
2. The case of the petitioner is that his father was working as
Foreman, Grade-I in the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd., and he died on 16.06.2007, while he was in service.
Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application seeking compassionate
appointment. The said application was rejected by the second respondent
on 16.06.2010, for the reason that the petitioner has not completed the age
of 18 years on the date of submitting the application. After attaining the
majority, he submitted a fresh application. The said application was also
rejected on 27.10.2016, reiterating the earlier reason that the petitioner has
not completed the age of 18 years. Thereafter, once again, the petitioner
submitted an application on 24.12.2018, seeking compassionate
appointment. The said application was also rejected by the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP(MD) No. 9794 of 2020
respondent, by the impugned order dated 14.11.2019, on the ground that the
petitioner has not completed the age of 18 years within the period of three
years from the date of death of the deceased employee. Challenging the
said order, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that while passing the impugned order, the second respondent has failed to
consider that the petitioner has submitted his first application for
compassionate appointment within three years from the date of death of his
father. 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, 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 hence, the
respondent has rightly rejected the petitioner's application for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP(MD) No. 9794 of 2020
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 shows, having incurred attendant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP(MD) No. 9794 of 2020
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/
WP(MD) No. 9794 of 2020
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. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner's applications
have been rejected by the second respondent on two occasions viz., on
16.06.2010 and 27.10.2016. However, the petitioner without challenging
aforesaid earlier orders, has filed the present writ petition challenging only
the recent impugned rejection order dated 14.11.2019. Further, the delay in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP(MD) No. 9794 of 2020
seeking compassionate appointment, after a lapse of 14 years cannot be
considered in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of P.Venkatesh (cited supra). Therefore, the impugned order does not
warrant any interference of this Court.
10. In fine, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No
costs.
31.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes /No
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/
WP(MD) No. 9794 of 2020
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
vsm
To
1. The Chief Engineer(Personnel),
TANGEDCO,
Annasalai, Chennai.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
Tanjavur Electric Distribution Circle,
No.1, Vallam Road,
Tanjavur.
WP(MD) No. 9794 of 2020
31.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
