Madras High Court
The Chairman vs C.L.Kaaviya on 7 July, 2021
W.A.No.1560 of 2021 and
C.M.P. No.9846 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.No.1560 of 2021 and C.M.P. No.9846 of 2021
1.The Chairman
TNEB Office, NPKRR Maligai
144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002
2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
NPKRR Maaligai
144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002
3.The Chief Engineer, Distribution
Salem Region, Salem 14
4.The Superintending Engineer (Distribution)
Salem Region, Udayarpatti, Salem 14 ... Appellants
Vs.
C.L.Kaaviya ...Respondent
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 28.02.2020 passed in W.P. No.12746 of
2012.
For Appellants : Mr.Karthik Rajan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1/7
W.A.No.1560 of 2021 and
C.M.P. No.9846 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.)
As no adverse order is passed against the respondent, notice
to the respondent is dispensed with.
2. This intra-court appeal is preferred by the Electricity Board
challenging the order dated 28.02.2020 passed in W.P. No.12746 of
2012.
3. The respondent herein is the daughter of one
Chidambaram, who was employed with the appellants and he died
on 19.09.2007 while he was in service, working as a Junior
Engineer. On the date of the death of the employee, the deceased
had left behind his wife, writ petitioner and her sister as his legal
heirs. The petitioner after her school final, had obtained a Diploma
in Electrical and Electronics Engineering and duly registered her
name in the District Employment Exchange on 19.06.2006. She was
also an Apprentice with the appellant Board in Erode for one year
and obtained a certificate of proficiency issued by the Board of
Apprenticeship Training (Southern Region), Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 2/7
W.A.No.1560 of 2021 and
C.M.P. No.9846 of 2021
4. While so, the appellant had called for recruitment to the
post of Technical Assistant in the month of July 2009 and the
petitioner was sponsored for the same by the District Employment
Exchange. However, the petitioner was not successful in the direct
recruitment. Therefore, the petitioner had made an application to
the appellants seeking compassionate appointment on 01.07.2010.
A reminder was also sent by her on 29.09.2010. Despite several
reminders by the writ petitioner, there was no response. However,
the appellants had sent a communication on 03.01.2011 stating
that the application made by the writ petitioner was beyond the
period of three years. The said order was challenged in the writ
petition, which was allowed, after elaborate consideration of the
facts and the dates relevant to the same.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the above writ appeal is filed by
the Board.
6. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants is that originally the writ petitioner had chosen to apply
through direct recruitment for a higher post, namely, Technical
Assistant and after coming out unsuccessful, has applied for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 3/7
W.A.No.1560 of 2021 and
C.M.P. No.9846 of 2021
post in Class IV on compassionate grounds. Secondly, it was
submitted that the time limit for making an application for
appointment on compassionate ground is three years, but the
application of the petitioner was received by the appellant only on
03.01.2011. Both the above said grounds are not sustainable, as
there is no bar that the writ petitioner/respondent cannot apply for
a direct recruitment with her qualifications. It may be unfortunate
that she could not be selected in the direct recruitment, but that
does not preclude her from applying for a post in the lower category
on compassionate ground. The only condition being that the same
should have been availed within a period of three years from the
date of death of the employee.
7. Admittedly the father of the writ petitioner died on
19.09.2007 and the application of the writ petitioner was made on
01.07.2010, which is well within the three years period prescribed.
Merely because the same was received by the officer concerned on
03.01.2011 will not dis-entitle the writ petitioner's application from
being considered. The writ petitioner has only sought for
appointment in Class IV category, the same being on compassionate
ground.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 4/7
W.A.No.1560 of 2021 and
C.M.P. No.9846 of 2021
8. It has been clearly established that the application was
made well within the period of three years. It is also admitted that
she had passed her school final and obtained a Diploma in Electrical
and Electronics Engineering. Therefore, the learned single Judge
also directed the authorities to consider the representation of the
writ petitioner on merits. In the light of the above discussions, it is
evident that there is no merit in the case of the appellants and the
same deserves to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, there is
no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected civil
miscellaneous petition is closed.
10. Before parting with the case, with the heavy heart, we
have to record that the compassionate ground itself is a succor to
the family, which has been delayed by the authorities, in this case,
in particular, for more than 14 years, on flimsy grounds. This is only
to defeat the very concept of compassionate appointment.
Therefore, we are inclined to direct the fourth appellant, to consider
the application of the petitioner, within a period of four weeks and
report compliance after six weeks.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 5/7
W.A.No.1560 of 2021 and
C.M.P. No.9846 of 2021
11. Post the matter for compliance on 29.09.2021.
[P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
07.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Asr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 6/7
W.A.No.1560 of 2021 and
C.M.P. No.9846 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
Asr
W.A.No.1560 of 2021 and
C.M.P. No.9846 of 2021
Date : 07.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 7/7
