Madras High Court
S.Azhagu Selvi vs The Chief Engineer on 9 December, 2022
W.P.(MD).No.27768 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.12.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.(MD)No.27768 of 2022
S.Azhagu Selvi ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Chief Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai -2.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Thoothukudi Distribution Circle,
Thoothukudi. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned order dated
09.11.2022 in Ka.No. 4355951/Nkghngh/Jhb/epgp2/Nfh.CM.PET/2022 on the file of
the 2nd respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For R1 & R2 : Mr.S.Arivalagan
Standing counsel
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.27768 of 2022
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order
passed by the second respondent, dated 09.11.2022 in Ka.No.
4355951/Nkghngh/Jhb/epgp2/Nfh.CM.PET/2022 and to quash the same.
2. By consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for
final disposal at the admission stage.
3. The case of the petitioner is that her father viz., Sandhanaraj
entered into service in the respondent Department in the year 1996 and
rendered service in the capacity of wire man. While so, on 17.11.2008,
during the employment he met with an accident and died in harness
leaving behind the petitioner, her mother and her grandmother in an
indigent circumstances. Therefore, the petitioner's mother has made an
application on 16.08.2011, for compassionate appointment. However, the
said application was rejected, on the ground that the petitioner's mother
has not possessed the requisite qualification. After getting necessary
qualification, the petitioner has made an application on 25.08.2022, to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.27768 of 2022
the Hon'ble chief Minister Special Cell and the same was forwarded to
the second respondent. The said application was rejected on 09.11.2022,
on the ground that the petitioner has not made an application within a
period of three years. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has
been filed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner's mother made the application within a period of three
years and the same was returned on the ground that the petitioner's
mother not possessed the minimum qualification. After become major,
the petitioner has made the application for compassionate appointment.
But the same was rejected on the ground of limitation. He would further
submit that similarly situated person was granted compassionate
appointment on 13.10.1995, by relaxing the three years. However, the
same was not extended to the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for allowing
the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.27768 of 2022
5. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1
and 2 would submit that at the relevant point of time, the law permits to
relax the age. It is well settled by the catena of decision of the Division
Bench of this Court to the effect that the compassionate appointment is
not the source of recruitment. It has to be considered only based on the
indigent circumstances faced by the family within a period of three years.
Hence, the concession cannot be shown to the petitioner, since the
petitioner's father died in the year 2008 and the petitioner has made an
application after lapse of more than two decades, which is not
permissible.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.
7. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. The petitioner's
father died in the year 2008 and initially the petitioner's mother made an
application for compassionate appointment in the year 2011. However,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.27768 of 2022
the said application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner's
mother was not possessed the requisite qualification. Subsequently, in the
year 2022, the petitioner has made an application through online and the
same was forwarded to the Electricity Board and the Electricity Board
has passed the impugned order, rejecting the petitioner's request on the
ground that the petitioner has not made the application within a period of
three years. However, the law is settled by the catena of decisions of this
Court as well as the Apex Court to the effect that the compassionate
appointment is not the source of recruitment and based on the indigent
circumstances faced by the family at the relevant point of time, the
employer has to consider for ordering compassionate appointment.
Unless the deceased family members satisfied the employer in terms of
the scheme, no compassionate appointment can be granted. Further, in
the present case, the earlier application made by the petitioner's mother
was rejected and the rejection order was not challenged subsequently.
Further, the petitioner being the daughter of the deceased employee made
an application in the year 2022, after lapse of two decades, which is
admittedly contrary to the Scheme. Further, the leniency shown in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.27768 of 2022
year 1995 cannot be cited as the precedent for all the cases. The Hon'ble
Apex Court clearly held that no concession will be shown in the
compassionate appointment, since the compassionate appointment is not
a source of recruitment and the relevant portion of the order of this Court
reads as follows:
“11. The Full Bench Judgment made in W.P.(MD).No.
7016 of 2011 etc., batch consisting of Hon'ble Chief Justice
and other two Hon'ble Judges of this Court, dated
11.03.2020 has given a complete answer to all these
questions which has been also followed by a Division Bench
of this Court of Hon'ble Chief Justice and other learned
Judge in W.A.No.237 of 2020, dated 01.09.2020.
12. For easy reference, the order of the Division Bench
referred to above is quoted hereunder :
W.P.No.36481 of 2004 "Having heard Mr.Nissar
Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant and keeping in
view the Full Bench decision, which has been delivered in
W.P. (MD) No.7016 of 2011 (Nandini Dev vs. Secretary to
Government) dated 11.03.2020, the relief prayed for by the
appellant cannot be extended. We may gainfully extract
paragraphs 31 and 32 of the judgment answering the
reference as follows:- “31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.27768 of 2022
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.”
8. In view of the above said decision, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the order impugned in this writ petition. Hence, this Writ
Petition is dismissed. No costs.
09.12.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
akv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.27768 of 2022
To
1.The Chief Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai -2.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Thoothukudi Distribution Circle,
Thoothukudi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.27768 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
akv
W.P.(MD)No.27768 of 2022
09.12.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
