Madras High Court
K.Meena vs Tamil Nadu Generation And ... on 15 June, 2021
W.A.No.999 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.06.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.No.999 of 2021
K.Meena .. Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
1. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
Rep. by its Chairman,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer, Personnel,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
3. The Superintending Engineer (Electrical),
Ennore Thermal Power Station,
TANGEDCO, Ennore,
Chennai-600 057. ..
Respondents/Respondents
***
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
against the order dated 15.09.2020 passed in W.P.No.12821 of
2020.
***
For Appellant : Mr.S.Doramswamy
1/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.999 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.)
The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant herein and
she laid challenge to the order of the Writ Court dated 15.09.2020
in W.P.No.12821 of 2020.
2. Since no adverse order is passed, notice to the
respondents is dispensed with.
3. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, her husband
one Kaliaperumal was working as Electrical Grade-II Junior
Engineer in the respondents Corporation and he died on
01.11.1998, while in service ; since the deceased got divorce from
his first wife and the application submitted by his son born through
the first wife was rejected and also the writ petitioner, being an
illiterate, she asked her elder son to submit an application seeking
compassionate appointment. Since the said child was not mentally
well, she submitted a representation on 26.06.2018 seeking
compassionate appointment to her younger son in vain, as the said
request was also rejected on 27.02.2020 on the ground that the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.999 of 2021
application was not made within a period of three years placing
reliance on Proceedings No.46(NiKi), dated 13.10.1995. She laid
challenge to the said order before the Writ Court, which was
negatived in the order impugned.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant /
writ petitioner and perused the materials placed on record.
5. Admittedly, the husband of the writ petitioner died on
01.11.1998 and she is the second wife of the deceased employee
of the respondents Corporation and the said marriage was after
obtaining divorce from the first wife. At that time, the sons of the
petitioner were minors aged 9 and 6 years respectively. The
application seeking compassionate appointment preferred by the
son of the deceased, who born to his first wife, was rejected during
2003 on the premise that he did not possess the minimum
educational qualification. The first son of the petitioner made a
similar claim, but he became insane. Hence, she made the
representation on 26.06.2018, rejection of which was impugned
before the writ Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.999 of 2021
6. It is apt to refer to the order of the Full Bench of this
Court dated 11.03.2020 in W.P.(MD).No.7016 of 2011, wherein, it
was held that the persons seeking compassionate appointment
must make the application without any delay and the Authority
also to consider the same within a reasonable time. As the
compassionate appointment is deviation from the regular
procedure of recruitment intended to meet the sudden crisis
occurring in the family on account of the death of the breadwinner,
any such application made has to be considered within a
reasonable period of time. The Full Bench relied upon the judgment
in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar V. Union of India & Others, (2011)
4 SCC 209, wherein, in paragraph 20(ii), it was observed as
follows :
“(ii) An application for compassionate employment must be
preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a
reasonable period of time.“
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank v.
Promila, (2020) 2 SCC 729 held as follows :
"20. We have to keep in mind the basic principles applicable to
the cases of compassionate employment i.e. succour being provided
at the stage of unfortunate demise, coupled with compassionate
employment not being an alternate method of public employment.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.999 of 2021
..... Thus, looked under any Schemes, the respondents cannot claim
benefit, though, as clarified aforesaid, it is only the relevant Scheme
the date of demise of the employee, which could have been
considered to be applicable, in view of the judgment of this Court in
Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412. It is not for the
courts to substitute a Scheme or add or subtract from the terms
thereof in judicial review, as has been recently emphasised by this
Court in State of H.P. v. Parkash Chand, (2019) 4 SCC 285."
From the above, it is clear that the objective of the scheme is only
to provide solace and succor to the family in difficult times, the
relevancy is at that stage of time when the employee passes away.
8. Following the above judgments, we have taken a
similar view in R.Vinoth Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Rep. by its
Chief Manager, (W.A.No.1289 of 2021, dated 15.06.2021) and
there is no ground made out by the learned counsel for the writ
petitioner to take a different view.
9. The writ Court also rightly considered the issue in hand
and the impugned order requires no interference. Accordingly, the
Writ Appeal is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, there shall be no order as to costs.
[P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
13.07.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.999 of 2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
gg
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.999 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
gg
W.A.No.999 of 2021
13.07.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
