Madras High Court
Adisayakani vs The Chief Engineer on 9 March, 2021
W.A(MD)No.507 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A(MD)No.507 of 2014
Adisayakani ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chief Engineer,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
Distribution,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Tirunelveli Division,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Supervisory Engineer,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Tirunelveli Division,
Tirunelveli. ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against
the order dated 19.10.2010 made in W.P(MD)No.6033 of 2010.
For Appellant : Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthick
For Respondents : Mr.T.Sakthikumaran,
Standing Counsel
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 1/7
W.A(MD)No.507 of 2014
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order
19.10.2010 made in W.P(MD)No.6033 of 2010.
2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The appellant who is the wife of late.Utchimakali was the petitioner
in the writ petition filed challenging the order passed by the first
respondent, dated 06.12.2009, rejecting the application to give a
compassionate appointment to her on the death of her husband. The
husband of appellant was working as a Commercial Supervisor in the
Tamilnadu Electricity Board and he died on 09.02.2003 leaving behind his
wife, daughter, four sons and mother. It appears that the appellant wife
had applied immediately within three years for an appointment on
compassionate ground. For the said application, the second respondent
had sent a reply in letter No.40076/NP.2/2003 dated 04.02.2004. In the
said communication, the appellant was directed to furnish certificate of
proof for education, immovable property, annual income, no re-marriage
certificate, indigent circumstances and an undertaking that none of the
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 2/7
W.A(MD)No.507 of 2014
family members are employed in Government or Private Sector.
The said communication also mentioned that unless a person had
completed eighth standard, he or she will not be eligible for
compassionate appointment. The appellant also obtained the above
mentioned certificates from Tahsildhar, Ambasamudram on 06.03.2006.
Since she did not have the qualification as required, she made an
application for appointment for her son Piramanayagam. The said
application was made on 22.06.2009. The first respondent had rejected
the representation on 05.12.2009 on the ground that the application
made beyond three years from the date of death of the employee.
Further, he should have completed 18 years and also passed eighth
standard. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petition was filed.
3. After an elaborate discussion, the learned single Judge dismissed
the writ petition vide order dated 19.10.2010, holding that the Court
cannot give direction with regard to appointment on compassionate
ground dehors the provisions of the scheme in force framed by the
Government.
4. Heard Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthick, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.T.Sakthikumaran, learned standing appearing for the
respondents and perused the materials available on record.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 3/7
W.A(MD)No.507 of 2014
5. The only question that arises for determination is,
“Whether the appellant is entitled for compassionate
appointment?”
6. As it has been repeatedly held that the purpose of providing
employment is only succour to the family at the time of hardship and
distress caused due to the death of the sole breadwinner. The
compassionate appointment is a deviation from the regular appointment
through the recruitment process. Therefore, the Government had fixed
three years from the date of death to be the limitation for preferring an
application.
7. The Honourable Supreme Court in a recent judgement in
N.C.Santhosh V. State of Karnataka, 2020 (7) SCC 617, held as
follows:
"19. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment
culled out from the above cited judgments, our opinion on the
point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of
consideration of the application, should be the basis for
consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 4/7
W.A(MD)No.507 of 2014
dependant of a government employee, in the absence of any
vested right accruing on the death of the government
employee, can only demand consideration of his/her
application. He is, however, disentitled to seek consideration
in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of
death of the government employee."
8. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to advert to
G.O.(Ms).No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated
23.01.2020, in which, comprehensive guidelines are issued for
appointment on compassionate grounds. The said G.O., prescribes only
three years time limit from the date of death of the Government servant
for making an application for appointment on compassionate ground.
The said G.O., also prescribes the age limit as 18 years at the time of
submitting an application on compassionate appointment. Further, the
compassionate appointment shall be made to the post in ‘C’ & ‘D’ groups
only.
9. In the case on hand, the first application was made by appellant
for herself within time. Though she was directed to produce the required
documents, as she did not possess the required educational qualification,
it appears that she had not pursued the application. Later, an application
is made in the year 2009 after her son Piramanayagam attained
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 5/7
W.A(MD)No.507 of 2014
majority. Unfortunately, by the said time, the limitation of three years
prescribed for making an application for appointment on compassionate
ground, was over. Therefore, the first respondent has rightly rejected the
application which is also confirmed by the learned single Judge.
10. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the same in the
light of the above discussion and the latest Government Order issued
in G.O.(Ms).No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated
23.01.2020, in this regard. Accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed,
confirming the order of the learned single Judge dated 19.10.2010 made
in W.P(MD)No.6033 of 2010. No Costs.
[P.S.N.,J] [S.K.,J.]
09.03.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
pm
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
Page 6/7
W.A(MD)No.507 of 2014
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL,J.
pm
W.A(MD)No.507 of 2014
09.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 7/7
