Madras High Court
D.Sivakumar vs The Chief Engineer on 22 January, 2021
W.P(MD)No.19897 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P(MD)No.19897 of 2017
D.Sivakumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chief Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited(TANGEDCO),
NPKRR Maligai, 144, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited(TANGEDCO),
Tiruchirappalli Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited(TANGEDCO),
Perambalur Electricity Distribution Circle,
Perambalur. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in
1/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.19897 of 2017
Ka.No.830/Ni.Bi.1/Ni.U.4/Ko.Va.Ve./2010, dated 16.02.2010 and
consequential impugned order passed by the second respondent
vide letter No.017739/950/Ni.Bi1/Ee.Ni.U/ Ko.Va.Ve./2017, dated
21.01.2017, quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents to provide suitable employment opportunity to the
petitioner on compassionate ground.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi
For Respondents : Mr.T.Sakthi Kumaran
Standing Counsel for R.1 to R.3
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the
impugned order passed by the third respondent in Ka.No.830/Ni.Bi.
1/Ni.U.4/Ko.Va.Ve./2010, dated 16.02.2010 and consequential
impugned order passed by the second respondent vide letter No.
017739/950/Ni.Bi1/Ee.Ni.U/ Ko.Va.Ve./2017, dated 21.01.2017,
quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to provide
suitable employment opportunity to the petitioner on compassionate
ground.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.19897 of 2017
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's father
R.Devaraj was working as Helper in the Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation (in short TANGEDCO) and while he was in
service, he died on 12.01.2001. At the time of his death, the
petitioner was aged about 10 years old and no other eligible person
was available in his family to make application seeking
compassionate appointment. The petitioner made an application on
23.12.2009, within a period of three years from the date of
attaining his majority. However, no action was forthcoming.
Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the Honourable
Chief Minister's cell. Thereafter, the third respondent passed the
impugned order dated 16.02.2010, by rejecting the petitioner's
claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that the
petitioner has not submitted the application within a period of three
years from the date of death of his father. Challenging the said
order of rejection, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the
petitioner.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that prior to 23.08.2005, no time limit was prescribed for
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.19897 of 2017
making compassionate appointment. However, after 23.08.2005,
seeking compassionate appointment, the age limit was fixed as 18
years and the same was confirmed vide proceedings dated
09.10.2005, wherein it was held that a person made application
between 23.08.2005 to 03.05.2005, they have to complete the age
of 18 years and prior to 2005, even the minor can apply. A person
who has not completed 18 years also entitled for making application
for compassionate appointment and the petitioner fell within period
of 23.08.2005 to 03.05.2010 and the petitioner made an application
on 23.12.2009, which is well within the time and therefore, the
learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for allowing the
writ petition.
4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the respondents would submit that the present issue is no more res
integra. When a similar circumstances arose in the case of The
Inspector General of Prisons, Trichirapalli District and
another Vs P.Marimuthu, reported in 2016(5) CTC 125, wherein
the Division Bench of this Court held that the minimum age is 18
years and no minor can be appointed to any service and therefore,
he cannot make any application for appointment to any post in
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.19897 of 2017
service and no post can be kept vacant for him, till he attains
majority.
5. It is relevant to extract hereunder paragraph Nos.38
and 39 of the said judgment:
“38. Needless to state that for entry into
any service in the State, the minimum age is 18
years, and no minor can be appointed to any service.
Therefore, he cannot make any application for
appointment to any post in service and no post can
be kept vacant for him, till he attains majority. Posts
which fall vacant have to be filled up as per the
recruitment rules. Employment assistance on
compassionate appointment, is only a concession,
extended to an eligible member of the family, to
apply for a suitable post, in the service, in which, the
employee/Government servant died in harness and it
is not a right, which can be exercised by a minor on
attainment of majority.
39. Thus, for the reasons stated supra, we
are of the view that continuation of penury or
indigent circumstances of the family, alone is not the
factor to be considered by the department, while
examining the request of an applicant for
appointment on compassionate grounds. Reading of
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.19897 of 2017
the Government orders shows that scheme 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
enables those who are eligible and satisfy all the
eligibility criteria including age, within three years
from the date of death.”
6. The said judgment was confirmed by the judgment of
the Full Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos.7016 of 2011and batch
cases, dated 11.03.2020 and the said judgment, Electricity Board
Circulars, Memorandums and Schemes were elaborately discussed
in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of the judgment and thereafter, the Full
Bench concluded that the period of three years is a rationale and
reasonable period under the relevant Government Orders and the
rules. In view of the above, the learned Standing Counsel prays for
dismissal of the writ petition.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.19897 of 2017
7. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents
and perused the materials placed on record.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances, the short issue
involved in the present case is as to whether the petitioner's
application made after attaining the majority is maintainable or not.
In the Full Judgment of this Court, in the unreported judgment in
W.P.(MD)Nos.7016 of 2011and batch cases, dated 11.03.2020, all
the Electricity Board Circulars, Government Orders and Schemes
were elaborately discussed, wherein it appears that before
23.08.2005, even a person, who has not attained the age of 18
years may also entitle for making application seeking compassionate
appointment. However, that position is modified vide Electricity
Board proceedings dated 09.10.2005, in which, the legal heirs who
have completed 18 years alone are eligible to seek compassionate
appointment after 04.05.2010. The Board proceedings clarified that
after 23.08.2005, the legal heirs who has completed 18 years of
age alone is to be treated as eligible for appointment on
compassionate grounds and further it is clarified that after
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.19897 of 2017
04.05.2010, those who have completed 18 years of age alone will
be treated as eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds.
9. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner's father
died on 12.01.2001 and the petitioner attained the majority on
16.04.2008 and he made an application on 23.02.2009. Though
the petitioner claims that immediately after attaining the age of
majority, he made an application within a period of three years,
however, the scheme provides that the legal heirs shall submit their
application within a period of three years from the date of death of
the employee. Therefore, the in the present case, the application
made by the petitioner is beyond the period of limitation, which
cannot be entertained.
10. The purpose of providing employment on
compassionate basis is to mitigate the hardship of the family which
has arisen due to the death of the employee and such appointment
therefore has to be provided immediately to ensure that the family
tide over the sudden crisis which has arisen due to the death of the
employee. The dependent of a deceased employee cannot be
permitted to convert a tragedy into a bonanza. If the compassionate
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.19897 of 2017
appointment is treated as one more source of recruitment, then it
will be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It is settled
by various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, an appointment
on compassionate basis is a concession given by the employer to
help the family of the deceased who has died in harness to get over
the immediate financial crisis. The scheme under which
compassionate appointment can be given has to be construed
strictly.
11. In the light of the above, the present petition is wholly
unsustainable and, accordingly deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. However there shall
be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petition is also dismissed.
Index : Yes/No 22.01.2021
Internet : Yes/No
SSL
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.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.19897 of 2017
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
SSL
To
1.The Chief Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited(TANGEDCO),
NPKRR Maligai, 144, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited(TANGEDCO),
Tiruchirappalli Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited(TANGEDCO),
Perambalur Electricity Distribution Circle,
Perambalur.
W.P(MD)No.19897 of 2017
22.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
