Vignesh vs The Superintending Engineer
2021 Latest Caselaw 21939 Mad

                                                                           W.P.(MD).No.19770 of 2021


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED: 02.11.2021

                                                        CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

                                                W.P.(MD)No.19770 of 2021

                     Vignesh                                            .. Petitioner

                                                           Vs.
                     The Superintending Engineer,
                     TANGEDCO,
                     Electricity Distribution Circle,
                     Pudukottai District.                               .. Respondent

                     PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
                     records relating to the impugned order, dated 19.12.2020 vide Letter No.
                     08387/Ne.Pe.1/Uthavi.4/Ko.Varisu.Velai/2020 passed by the respondent
                     and to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, to direct
                     the respondent to appoint the petitioner in suitable job under
                     compassionate appointment.


                               For Petitioner           :Mr.K.Baalasundharam

                               For Respondent           :Mr.T.Sakthi Kumaran
                                                           ***



                     1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                              W.P.(MD).No.19770 of 2021




                                                        ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus to quash the impugned order passed by the respondent, dated

19.12.2020 and to direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner in any

suitable job on compassionate ground.

2.Heard Mr.K.Baalasundharam, learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Mr.T.Sakthi Kumaran, learned Counsel appearing for the

respondent.

3.The petitioner is the son of one Ashokan, who was working as

Mazdoor in the respondent Corporation. The petitioner's father died due

to electrocution, while he was in service, on 10.11.2011, when the

petitioner's brother and petitioner were minors. Though the petitioner's

mother submitted an application on 17.10.2014, requesting the

respondent to give compassionate appointment to her or any of her sons,

the respondent did not consider by processing the application. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD).No.19770 of 2021

petitioner submitted an application on 01.12.2020, to provide

compassionate appointment to him. However, the request of the

petitioner was rejected on the ground of limitation, ie., the legal heirs did

not submit the application within a period of three years from the date

when the eligible legal heir became major. Aggrieved by the same, the

above Writ Petition is filed.

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner's application seeking for compassionate appointment cannot be

dismissed on the ground of limitation, as the petitioner's mother had

earlier submitted the application on 17.10.2014, which was within three

years from the date of death of employee. It is further stated that the

petitioner did not complete the age of 18 years within three years from

the date of death of petitioner's father and that therefore, the petitioner's

application, which was filed within three years from the date on which,

the petitioner attained majority, cannot be dismissed on the ground of

limitation.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD).No.19770 of 2021

5.The application submitted by the petitioner's mother was not

pursued for reasons best known to the petitioner or his mother. However,

that cannot be taken to save limitation . Assuming that the petitioner has

submitted an application within three years from the date on which the

petitioner attained majority, the scheme framed by respondent regarding

compassionate appointment should enable the petitioner to seek

appointment within three years from the date of attaining majority. The

petitioner submitted the application on 01.12.2020, by that time, three

years have elapsed calculating from the date when the petitioner's elder

brother became major. Therefore, the reason that was assigned by the

respondent to reject the application cannot be assailed.

6.The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of

learned Single Judge of this Court in the case S.Subesh vs The

Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO and others, in W.P.

(MD)No.11808 of 2020, dated 16.09.2020. The case dealt with by the

learned Single Judge does not fall under the category of case dealt with

by the Honourable Full Bench of this Court in Nandini Dev vs Secretary

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD).No.19770 of 2021

to Government, in W.P.(MD)No.7016 of 2011, dated 11.03.2020. The

Honourable Full Bench of this Court has categorically held that if belated

application is made beyond three years or belatedly after the legal heir

becoming major, that cannot be considered within the meaning of the

scheme framed by the employer to give compassionate appointment to

the legal heir of the deceased employee. The Honourable Full Bench of

this Court has held as follows:

“31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 7 SCC 192, has held that when the very purpose of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief, then the application by the dependant of the deceased employee filed after he attains majority cannot be entertained. Considering a belated application will be contrary to the scheme framed by the Government and will be also contrary to the judgments of the Supreme Court.

32. In view of the above, the reference is answered as under:- a) Appointment on compassionate basis has to be strictly followed in accordance with the relevant G.O.'s or the scheme that has been framed by the employer. Any deviation from the scheme is not permissible. b) In view of the above the judgment of the Division Bench in E.Ramasamy Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the Secretary to Government Vs. Renugadevi, lays down the correct law and the judgment of the Division Bench dated 06.08.2013 in A.Kamatchi Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, which is contrary to the scheme framed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board does not lay down the correct proposition. Reference is answered accordingly.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD).No.19770 of 2021

7.Having regard to the admitted facts and the decision of the

Honourable Full Bench of this Court, this Court is not inclined to

entertain this Writ Petition. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed as

devoid of any merits. No costs.

                     Index          : Yes / No                        02.11.2021
                     Internet       : Yes / No

                     tmg/cmr






https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                         W.P.(MD).No.19770 of 2021


                                             S.S.SUNDAR, J.

                                                        tmg/cmr




                                   W.P.(MD)No.19770 of 2021




                                                    02.11.2021






https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/