Madras High Court
(Heard Through Vc) vs The Chairman on 11 March, 2021
W.P.No.15548 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 11.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.15548 of 2020
and
W.M.P.No.19767 of 2020
(Heard through VC)
S.Akilandeswari .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Chairman,
The Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation,
TANGEDCO,
Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer Personnel,
TANGEDCO,
Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Mettur Electricity Distribution,
Circle TANGEDCO,
Mettur Dam-1,
Salem District. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue
a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in Letter
No.017336/541/Ni.Pi.1/U.3/Koo. Va. Ve./2019 dated 04.11.2019 by the
3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently for a direction to
direct the respondent Board to provide job assistance to petitioner on
compassionate ground and to disbursement of death cum terminal and
pay family pension.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.15548 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Manoharan
For Respondents : Mr.Karthik Rajan
ORDER
The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition to
quash the order passed by the third respondent in Letter
No.017336/541/Ni.Pi.1/U.3/Koo. Va. Ve./2019 dated 04.11.2019 and
consequently for a direction to direct the respondents-Board to provide
job assistance to her on compassionate ground and to disbursement of
death cum terminal and pay family pension.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner's husband was employed as a Casual Contract Labourer in
the respondents-Board and rendered services from 11.03.2008 to
28.07.2010. However, similarly placed persons have been regularized
and the benefit of permanent status have been extended to them. The
learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner's case is also
supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court
dated 03.08.2012 (R.Lakshmi vs. The Chief Engineer (Personnel) and
another) made in W.P.No.5980 of 2004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.15548 of 2020
3. According to the petitioner, her husband had completed
480 days in a 24 calender month and that there was a settlement
between the Management and the Union. The petitioner’s husband is
deemed to have attained the permanent status, but, unfortunately he
died on 31.07.2010 and the petitioner, being the wife of Late Muthu,
sent a representation for compassionate appointment on 16.10.2017.
The said application has been forwarded by the third respondent to the
second respondent vide communication dated 21.04.2018 and
subsequently, based on the letter of the second respondent dated
23.10.2019, the request of the petitioner has been rejected by the third
respondent vide impugned order dated 04.11.2019 stating that the
petitioner has made the application dated 16.10.2017 belatedly and
that the question of considering the case of the petitioner for
compassionate appointment does not arise at all, as the petitioner’s
husband worked only as a contract labourer.
4. Mr.Karthik Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Board would submit that though the representation dated
16.10.2017 has been referred to in the communication of the third
respondent dated 21.04.2018, it cannot be denied that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.15548 of 2020
representation dated 16.10.2010 is also found mentioned in the body of
the letter. A perusal of both the documents presented by the petitioner
in the original typed set of papers and additional typed set of papers
reveals the fact that both are one and the same. The petitioner in the
additional typed set of papers submitted that the request of
compassionate appointment has been made as early as on 16.10.2010
itself to the respondents by certificate of posting, which has been
referred to in the communication dated 21.04.2018 and that yet
another representation dated 16.10.2017 was forwarded to the
respondents, which has been considered and the request of the
petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order dated 04.11.2019.
5. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating
that the petitioner’s husband was employed on 11.03.2009 as Contract
Labourer and that he died on 31.07.2010 prior to the confirmation as
permanent worker as Mazdoor or other category and hence, he cannot
be considered as permanent worker. He has also referred to the (Per.)
FB TANGEDCO Proceedings No.11, dated 11.06.2020, which reads as
follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.15548 of 2020
“02. Persons whose Legal heirs are not eligible for
consideration under Compassionate Ground
Appointment:
.......
(ii) Persons who are under Temporary appointments,
consolidated pay, daily wages, contract appointments
and whose services are not regularized including part
time conservancy workers.”
6. According to the respondents, the petitioner, being a
Temporary Casual Labourer, will not be entitled to appointment on
compassionate ground, on account of the demise of her late husband.
Since this Court has already considered the grant of permanent status
to the Contract Labourers and the Division Bench judgment of this
Court dated 03.08.2012 is squarely applicable to the facts of this case,
on technical aspects, the case of the petitioner cannot be deprived. It is
no doubt true that there are catena of judgment of the Apex Court that
the compassionate appointment has got to be considered as an
exception and it cannot be demanded as a matter of right to get an
entry into public employment.
7. I had an occasion to consider the batch of cases even with
regard to the Electricity Board in W.P(MD).Nos.4129, 7045, 16624 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.15548 of 2020
20786 of 2014 and W.P(MD).Nos.19455 and 19530 of 2018 dated
24.09.2018, pursuant to which, the Government has also issued a
Government Order issuing guidelines with regard to considering the
case of persons, who are seeking compassionate appointment. Since
the issue is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court
(supra), the request of the petitioner needs to be considered and in
case the petitioner fulfills all other criteria for appointment in Class-IV
employment, the case of the petitioner can be considered. Upon
production of necessary documents to show that the petitioner is the
legally wedded wife of the deceased employee and legal-heir and that
there are no rival claims, it is open to the respondents to consider the
case of the petitioner for granting terminal benefits.
8. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court dated 03.08.2012 in the given peculiar circumstances of the
case, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated
04.11.2019 is set aside, with a direction to the third respondent to
consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon,
in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 90
days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if there are no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.15548 of 2020
legal impediments, and communicate the same to the petitioner within
a period of three weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.03.2021
Index : Yes/no
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
rsi
To
1.The Chairman,
The Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation,
TANGEDCO,
Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer Personnel,
TANGEDCO,
Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Mettur Electricity Distribution,
Circle TANGEDCO,
Mettur Dam-1,
Salem District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.15548 of 2020
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
rsi
W.P.No.15548 of 2020
and
W.M.P.No.19767 of 2020
11.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
