Madras High Court
R.Arunkumar vs The Chairman on 27 July, 2023
2023:MHC:3585
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.07.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.38243 of 2016
and W.M.P.No.32792 of 2016
R.Arunkumar .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.
2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel),
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Vellore Electricity Distribution Circle,
Vellore District. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
made in the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in
Let.No.046006/427/G8/G81/2013-4 dated 04.04.2015 and quash the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
and further direct the respondents to provide suitable employment to the
petitioner on compassionate ground and sanction family pension and death
cum retirement benefits.
For Petitioner .. Mr.S.N.Ravichandran
For Respondents .. Mr.K.Rajkumar
Standing Counsel (TANGEDCO)
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified
Mandamus seeking interference with the order passed by the 2nd
respondent/the Chief Engineer (Personnel), TANGEDCO, Chennai, in Letter
No.046006/427/G8/G81/2013-4 dated 04.04.2015, and to further direct the
respondents to provide suitable employment to the petitioner on
compassionate grounds and also sanction family pension and death cum
retirement benefits with respect to the service rendered by the father of the
petitioner P.Rajagopal.
2(a). The petitioner was aged about 26 years at the time of filing the
writ petition. His father was employed as a Contract Labour from 1989 with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
K.Lakshmanan, in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at the Office of the
Junior Engineer (O&M), Virunchipuram, Vellore Electricity Distribution
Circle. It is claimed that the petitioner's father was employed without any
break in service and his service was permanent and perennial. However, his
name was omitted in the Justice Khalid Committee Report, which had been
formed to identify contract Labourers for being observed in service in the
erstwhile Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The father of the petitioner continue
to work as a Contract Labourer
2.(b) On 12.03.2004, the father of the petitioner along with Line
Inspector P.Durairaj had carried out repairs at Mottur SSIII, 250 KVA
transformer at Virunchipuram. While they were reconditioning the said
transformer at about 12.00 p.m., the father of the petitioner suffered shock
by electrocution and died on the way to Hospital. In this connection,
Arulselvan/the Assistant Engineer, had given a police complaint and
accordingly, a FIR was came to be registered in Crime No.93 of 2004 by the
Inspector of Police, Virunchipuram Police Station. Thereafter, the Post
Mortem report confirmed that the death was due to electrocution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. (c) The petitioner, his mother, his sister and his grandfather were
the only legal heirs of deceased P.Rajagopal. Thereafter, the mother of the
petitioner filed an application seeking compensation against the respondents
herein under the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, in
W.C.No.249 of 2004 and an award was passed on 11.04.2005, directing the
Electricity Board to pay a sum of Rs.2,40,270/- (Two Lakhs Forty Thousand
Two Hundred and Seventy only) together with interest at the rate of 12% per
annum. As against that particular award passed by the Commissioner of
Labour, the respondents herein filed C.M.A.No.634 of 2006. Pending
appeal, the mother of the petitioner had filed an application seeking
employment on compassionate ground for her son namely the petitioner
herein, consequent to his completion of 18 years of age.
2. (d) The petitioner has averred in the affidavit that his mother was
informed that compassionate appointment could not be granted since the
father was a contract labourer. Thereafter, the judgment in C.M.A.No.634 of
2006 was delivered, wherein one of the primary issue that had been decided
was that the father was an employee under the respondents and holding so
on the basis of evidence let in, the learned Single Judge, by judgment dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22.09.2010, dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and confirmed the
award of the Commissioner of Labour. The petitioner quite independent of
the earlier application given by his mother had also given a representation
seeking employment on compassionate grounds on 29.05.2013. The 2nd
respondent, by proceedings dated 27.06.2013, directed the 3 rd respondent to
furnish a report and issued a further direction in that regard. After a period
of more than two years, the impugned order was passed on 04.04.2015,
signed on 17.07.2015, rejecting the plea of the petitioner herein seeking
employment on compassionate basis. The only ground such request by the
petitioner was rejected was that the father of the petitioner was a Contract
Labour. It was stated that since there were no rules available for granting
compassionate employment to the children of those who were in contract
basis, the petitioner was disentitled from seeking such relief. Questioning
that particular order, this writ petition has been filed.
3. A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the 3rd
respondent/the Superintending Engineer, Vellore Electricity Distribution
Circle, Vellore District. In the counter affidavit, it had been stated that the
father of the petitioner was working as a Contract Labour and died due to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
electrocution on 12.03.2004 and such electrocution occurred while the father
of the petitioner was repairing the transformer. The fact about the claim
made before the Workmen Compensation Tribunal, was also confirmed. The
fact that an award was granted was also confirmed. It was stated that the
claim of the petitioner seeking employment was rejected only on the ground
that the Board has a policy that it would grant employment only to those
who were the legal heirs of permanent employees and not for those of
contract Labourers.
4. It had been stated that the application had also been filed only on
29.05.2013 after 9 years, 2 months and 17 days. It had been stated that the
employment necessity of the family seeking compassionate appointment did
not exist after a period of 9 years. It had also been stated that the Scheme
cannot be extended to contract Labourer, who were working only for a
temporary period under a particular Scheme.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the
judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.30022 of 2012
dated 14.12.2017, wherein it was stated that a contract Labourer who was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
working in a particular Scheme, can be said to be employed only during the
period of that particular Scheme and therefore, the legal heirs cannot seek
any right for the compassionate employment, if he dies during the course of
employment.
6. Reliance had also been placed on the Full Bench judgment of this
Court in W.P.(MD).No.7016 of 2011 dated 11.03.2020, wherein it had
been held that appointment on compassionate grounds has to be strictly
followed in accordance with the relevant Government rules on schemes
framed by the employer and that any deviation from the same is not
permissible.
7. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Subramanian, learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents.
8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
father of the petitioner was a contract Labourer, who had worked
continuously under the respondents. It had been stated that though several
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
such workers had been identified to be absorbed by the respondents,
unfortunately, the father of the petitioner had been left out. It was pointed
out that this would not mean that the father was not working under direct
supervision of the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner also
stated that the claim of the respondents that compassionate employment
would be granted only to those who are recognised as employees of the
respondents cannot withstand the scrutiny of this Court.
9. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of a learned
Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.10 of 2018 in the case of
M.Vigneshwaran Vs. the Superintending Engineer, TNEB, dated
22.04.2019 whereby, it was held that if death occurred due to unnatural
circumstances like a case of electrocution, there cannot be strict existence of
the period of three years, within ab application should be made for seeking
employment under compassionate basis.
10. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the subsequent order
passed by the Division Bench and pointed out that owing to oral
observations of Division Bench of this Court, the respondents therein namely
the Electricity Board/respondents herein had provided employment to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
writ petitioner therein.
11. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of a learned Single Judge
of this Court in W.P.No.30910 of 2002 dated 10.09.2005 in the case of
Veeramani Vs The Chief Engineer/Personnel, TNEB, Chennai, wherein it
was held that the Electricity Board cannot be heard to raise technical
objections and must provide employment to the dependants of those who die
while performing duties.
12. The learned counsel also pointed out the proceedings of the
respondents dated 08.05.2013 wherein, with respect to the time for making
application, it had been stated that the applicant should have completed 18
years and a maximum of 35 years. If a widow claims employment, the
maximum age limit was 50 years. It had also been stated that in special
cases the proposal for compassionate appointment to the legal heirs of the
Bonafide Contract Labourers who die in fatal electrical accidents will be
considered but limited to those Labourers who would have been observed as
permanent employees if they had continued in service.
13. The learned counsel also pointed out the reasoning of the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Single Judge of this Court in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the
respondents questioning the award of the Commissioner of Labour under the
Workmen Compensation Act. The learned Single Judge had specifically held
that the father of the petitioner was an employee of the respondents.
14. The learned counsel pointed out that the FIR had been lodged only
by the Assistant Executive Engineer and stated that there was no obligation
on the Assistant Executive Engineer to so lodge a complaint if the father of
the petitioner was a total stranger. He further stated that in the FIR it had
been very specifically averred that the father died while repairing the
transformer.
15. Mr.K.Rajkumar, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the
respondents however was quite emphatic in his submissions that the
petitioner was not at all eligible to be considered for grant of appointment
under compassionate basis. It is the contention of the learned Standing
Counsel that the father of the petitioner was not at all an employee of the
respondents and the Board proceedings permitted only children or legal
heirs of the employee to be considered for grant of such employment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16. It is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the
application was also made after considerable delay and on that ground the
request of the petitioner herein should be rejected.
17. In this connection, the learned Standing Counsel placed reliance
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2023 (1) SLR
774, in the case of Kirloskar Brothers Limited Vs. Ramcharan and Others,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had distinguished between employment
on contract basis under the contract or a direct employee and had very
specifically stated that a contract Labourer is the contract Labourer and not
an employee. The learned Standing Counsel contended that the petitioner
was not eligible to be considered for grant of employment. The learned
Standing Counsel was quite definite in his observations that the writ petition
should be dismissed.
18. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced and perused
the materials placed on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19. The following facts are not in dispute in this case:
1. The father of the petitioner was an employee
on contract basis under the respondents.
2. Owing to such employment, the father of the
petitioner was paid salary or wages or
remuneration by the respondents.
3. The father of the petitioner, died due to
electrocution while repairing a transformer.
The above facts are not denied or disputed. The one aspect relied
upon by the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents is that in
view of those facts, the petitioner stands disqualified from seeking
employment consequent to the fact that the father of the petitioner was a
contract Labourer.
20. In this connection, strong reliance is placed on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2023 (1) SLR 774, in the case of
Kirloskar Brothers Limited Vs. Ramcharan and others. That was a case
where an application had been made for absorption in service by those who
were contract Labourers. The consistent of the Courts below were reversed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In that particular case, one defining factor
was that the 7th respondent was the named contractor. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed that contract of service between that particular contractor/7th
respondent and those who sought permanent employment, was a subsisting
contract and that contract between the contractor and the employees had not
been declared void under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970. It was specifically found that the particular enactment
namely the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, was a
Central Government enactment and reliance placed by the Courts below on a
State Legislation was not proper in view of Article 154 of the Constitution of
India. Therefore, the claim of the employees to be regularized was rejected,
by holding that they had a valid contract, which was not declared void or
illegal under the provisions of the aforementioned Act. It was held that since
such declaration had not been made, their obligation was only with the
contractor and not with the employer.
21. Holding as above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
employees therein could not claim permanency in employment and
therefore, set aside the judgments of all the Courts below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22. This judgment, is distinguishable on the facts of this particular
case. There was direct evidence extracted in the judgment of the learned
Single Judge of this Court in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, which had
been filed by the respondents herein questioning the award of the
Commissioner of Labour under Workmen Compensation Act, who had
granted an award consequent to the death of the father of the petitioner
herein.
23. One of the issues framed for consideration was whether the father
of the petitioner herein was an employee of the respondents. This issue was
direct. This issue was straight forward. It examined whether there was a
relationship of employer/employee between the respondents herein and the
father of the petitioner herein.
24. The answer to that issue directly applies to the case of this writ
petitioner herein. Answering that particular issue, the learned Single Judge
in order dated 22.09.2010 in C.M.A.No.634 of 2006, in the case of The
Superintending Engineer, Vellore Electricity Distribution Circle Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.Suganthi, held as follows:
“4. At the time of admission, the following
question of law has been framed:
“1. Whether the deceased was a workman
to claim a compensation under this Act?”
5. The short point for consideration in the
appeal is whether the deceased was a workman
entitled to claim compensation under the
Workmen Compensation Act?
6. It is stated in the application filed by the
respondent, who is the dependent of the deceased
that the deceased P.Rajagopal, was a workman
employed by the opposite party/appellant and
when he was attending to works at Mottur SS.III
250KVA Transformer, the accident took place. At
the time of accident, the deceased was earning
Rs.75/- per day and the respondent claimed a
compensation of Rs.2,02,780.50/-.
7. In the counter affidavit it is stated that
on 12.03.2004 the deceased without the
knowledge of the Department personnel
attempted to release the L.T bushing second
jumper in Mottur SS III 250KVA distribution
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
transformer, Virinjipuram O & M Section when it
was affected by the interruption of supply and
thereby met with the accident. Further, when it is
stated that if he had used the safety measures, the
accident could have been avoided, it is clear that
he is treated as an employee of the Electricity
Board. Further in this evidence, the respondent
has stated as follows:
“/// ,J FwpjJ
; vjph;kDjhuh; jug;gpy; jkpH;ehL kpd;rhu
thhpa epiyahd Cjpak; Fwpj;j ml;ltiz (v/k/rh/M9)
jhf;fy; bra;J kWg;g[ bjhptpj;jpUe;Jk; v/k/rh/1 jdJ
rhl;rpaj;jpy; 01/07/1996 Kjy; xg;ge;j bjhHpyhsh;fSf;F
epiyahd Cjpak; Fwpj;j ml;ltiz (k/rh/M/7)d; mog;gilapy;
rk;gsk; bfhLf;f Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;W rhl;rpak;
mspj;Js;shh;/”
8. Hence, in the evidence also the fact that
the deceased is an employee has been admitted.
Therefore, when in the pleadings as well in the
evidence it has been clearly admitted that the
deceased is an employee of the Electricity Board,
it is not open to the appellant to say that he is not
an employee. Accordingly, the substantial
question of law No.1 is answered in favour of the
respondent and as against the appellant.
9. So far as the quantum is concerned,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
there is no quarrel over the same, since the
correct factor has been applied and the age and
salary also are admitted. Under these
circumstances the compensation awarded by the
Court below is fair, reasonable and correct. In
the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
10. It is stated by the learned counsel for
the appellant that the entire award amount has
already been deposited and 50% has already
been permitted to be withdrawn by the
respondent. The respondent is permitted to
withdraw the balance amount along with accrued
interest.”
It is thus seen that the said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal itself was admitted
on only one question of law and that question of law “whether the deceased
was a workman to claim compensation under this Act” that issue was
answered on the basis of the evidence adduced not by the applicant/mother
of the petitioner, but by the respondents herein.
25. On the basis of the evidence of the respondents, which had been
extracted above in the order, the learned Judge came to a conclusion that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
father died in the course of employment and such employment was provided
directly by the respondents and therefore, the respondents had an obligation
to pay compensation for his death. Compensation can be paid and can be
directed to be paid only when the death occurs in the course of employment
and during the course of employment, and that employment should be
authorised by the respondents. A stranger cannot be called upon to climb on
a transformer to do repairs. It is only a person, who is authorised to do that
work can be given that particular work to repair that particular transformer.
The transformer is the property of the respondents and nobody can
unauthorizedly climb on a transformer. Therefore, if a person is directed to
work on a transformer, he should have necessary authority and
responsibility and those who directed him to work should bear the
consequences if anything untoward happens.
26. In this case, the drastic incident had led to the death of the father
of the petitioner herein. To that extent, the respondents have a responsibility
to discharge their duty.
27. It is contended that by the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the respondents that the application had been given after a considerable
period of three years.
28. The learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.10 of 2018, in the
case of M.Vigneshwaran Vs. The Superintending Engineer, TNEB dated
22.04.2019. As a matter of fact, the order of the Division Bench of this
Court is very telling. What is more important is that during the course of
hearing on 15.03.2019, when the Division Bench had observed as follows:
“ The father of the appellant was a
Lineman. He was electrocuted while in service.
The application submitted by the appellant to the
respondents seeking compassionate appointment
was rejected. The writ petition filed by the
appellant was dismissed on the ground of delay
and laches.
2. We are of the view that this is a fit case
for giving compassionate appointment. The
respondents, in a very mechanical manner,
rejected the request for compassionate
appointment. Eventhough we originally directed
the Chief Engineer to appear before this Court
and explain as to why the application of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellant for commissionate appointment was
mechanically rejected, the learned Standing
Counsel submitted that he would take up the
matter with the respondents.
3. We direct the respondents to take a
decision in this matter taking into account the
fact that the death was not under normal
circumstances and it was during the course of
employment, more particularly, a case of
electrocution. Therefore, a lenient approach
should be taken by the respondents.
4. Let the respondents take a decision and
communicate to this Court by 21.03.2019.
5. Post on 21.03.2019.”
29. Thereafter, on 22.04.2019, the Division Bench had ordered as
follows:
“ The application submitted by the
appellant for compassionate appointment was
rejected by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on
the ground that there was a considerable delay
in making the application. The learned Single
Judge agreed with the contention taken by the
respondent resulting in dismissing the Writ
Petition. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
come forward with this intra Court Appeal.
2. We have perused the material papers
produced by the appellant. The father of the
appellant was a Lineman. He was electrocuted
while in service. Under such circumstances, the
appellant made an application for compassionate
appointment.
3. The respondent rejected the application
like any other application on the ground of
delay. We have therefore, passed an order
directing the respondent to pass appropriate
orders giving compassionate appointment to the
appellant.
4. The TNGEDCO through its
Superintending Engineer complied with the
direction and issued orders of appointment
dated 16.04.2019. The Executive Engineer,
Operation and Maintenance also passed an
order dated 20.04.2019, posting the appellant at
Mettur Electricity Distribution Circle and
allotted to Sankari Division.
5. The TNGEDCO has changed its
indifferent attitude now by giving appointment to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the appellant. Since the earlier direction of this
Court has already been complied with, there is
no need for further adjudication of the issue
raised by the appellant.
6. The TANGEDCO must consider the
request of the legal representatives of those
employees who were electrocuted in a
commissionate manner. Those employees have
sacrificed their life in connection with their
employment. The application like the appellant
should be given due consideration with priority.
7. The intra Court Appeal is disposed of,
with the above observation. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.”
30. This order answers the issue of delay. In that case, the application
seeking compassionate employment by the son of a Lineman was given to
the respondents. It had been observed that the death occurred not under
normal circumstances but during the course of employment and more
particularly owing to electrocution. The Division Bench directed the
respondents to provide employment and come back with an answer that
employment had actually been provided in the next hearing date. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Division Bench, after recording that there had been compliance of the said
direction had also observed as that the request of the family of those
employees who sacrifice their lives in connection with their employment,
should be taken into consideration if ever any request is placed seeking
compassionate employment.
31. There is yet another order which had been placed reliance by the
learned counsel for the petitioner namely the order of a learned Single Judge
of this Court in W.P.No.39010 of 2002 dated 10.09.2005, in the case of
Veeramani Vs. The Chief Engineer/Personnel, TNEB, Chennai. In that
case, the father of the writ petitioner had died when he was attending work,
and died of electrocution on 02.12.1980. It was observed that he died during
the course of employment leaving behind her wife, who was pregnant. The
petitioner therein was only 1 ½ years old at the time of death of his father.
32. Thereafter, the petitioner passed Higher Secondary Education and
also qualified typewriting higher in both Tamil and English and then had
forwarded representations in 1999 and 2000, nearly 19 to 20 years after the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
death of the father. By an order dated 16.09.1998, the Chief Engineer of the
respondents had rejected the application since it was given too long after the
staff had expired. The observations of the learned Single Judge are extracted
hereunder:
“ 5. Having regard to the scheme of
compassionate appointment implemented by the
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, which provide for
appointments being given for the kith and kin or
even members of the staff, who die natural death,
there is no justification for denying employment
to the legal representatives of the deceased
employee, who met with his death while
performing his duties, having suffered
electrocution.
6. Though the legal aspects of the scope of
compassionate appointment was elaborately
argued by both sides, I am inclined to hold that
this is a hard case in which the respondent
Electricity Board cannot be heard to be raising
such technical objections. As pointed out earlier,
when the scheme of compassionate appointment
has been extended to certain unreasonable
limits, providing employment even in the place of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
employees who die natural death, there is no
justification for the respondent raising technical
objections of limitation.
7. Here is a case where the employee had
lost his life while performing his duties. The said
claim is not denied.
8. Therefore, having regard to the said
fact, I am inclined to hold that in this case, such
technical objections cannot be countenanced.
9. With the result, the writ petition is
allowed and the respondent is directed to give
suitable posting and appointment to the
petitioner within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No
costs.”
This also answers the issue of delay. Both the Division Bench and the
learned Single Judge have stated in very strong terms that the issue of delay
should not be put, if the employee died in the course of employment due to
electrocution and such death was not natural.
33. The issue that the father of the petitioner herein only a contract
Labourer and therefore, could not be considered has to be rejected,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
consequent to the order of the learned Single Judge that even employees of
the contract Labourers should be granted with compassionate employment.
Moreover, the judgment in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as stated supra had
very specifically answered that the respondents are the employers of the
father of the petitioner herein. That issue had been directly answered against
the respondents.
34. The next issue of delay had again be answered and the reasons of
the Division Bench and learned Single Judge are directly applied by me in
this particular case.
35. The reliance placed by the learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents in the counter affidavit, that the scheme of the respondents to
exclude from the scheme dependents of a contract Labourer cannot be found
fault, but can not be applied to the facts of this case, since in the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal, it had been very specifically found that the
respondents are the employers and the father of the petitioner had been paid
salary. Therefore, that issue cannot be put against the petitioner herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
36. The direction issued by the Full Bench judgment as stated supra
are followed. The father died owing to electrocution during the course of
employment. The death of the father was an unnatural death. The petitioner
had applied immediately after he completed the age of 18 years. Therefore,
the rejection of application is not proper.
37. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on
proceedings No.12 dated 08.05.2013 of the respondents. To avoid any
confusion, let me extract the proceedings in entirety:
“ PROCEEDINGS:
The TANGEDCO is adopting the
following guidelines for consideration of
employment on compassionate grounds to the
family of the deceased Board employee;-
a) Legal heirs should have applied for
employment within 3 years from the date of
death of the employee.
b) At the time of application, legal heir
seeking employment should have completed 18
years subject to a maximum of 35 years of age
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and in cases of widow the age limit prescribed
is 50 years.
c) Should possess a minimum
qualification of 8th Std. pass.”
38. It is seen that the respondents themselves had passed the above
proceedings. They have taken a decision that in special cases, the proposal
for compassionate appointment to the legal heirs of Bonafide Contract
Labourer, who happened to die in fatal electrical accident could be
considered by the respondents. This has to be read in conjunction with the
specific averment made in the affidavit that those who worked along with
the father of the petitioner, had been absorbed as employees of the Board.
Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the
father had continued to live, he would have been absorbed, will have to be
given due credits.
39. In view of all these aspects, I hold that the respondents have an
obligation to discharge their duty, recognising the work done by the father of
the petitioner herein and that obligation is to provide employment on
compassionate basis to the petitioner, if otherwise eligible. Accordingly, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
writ petition stands allowed.
40. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders within a
period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
41. I would also make it clear that it is only a direction of the Court in
the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal that employment of the father had been
recognised and therefore, the other reliefs have not been directly addressed. I
advise the petitioner to be content with gaining employment. It would be a
recognition of the services rendered by his father.
42. Writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
27.07.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citations : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking
ata
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.
2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel),
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Vellore Electricity Distribution Circle,
Vellore District.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
ata
W.P.No.38243 of 2016
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
27.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
