Madras High Court
G.Moulin Prasanth vs The Chief Engineer (Personnel) on 6 October, 2023
W.P.No.7870 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.10.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P. No. 7870 of 2020
G.Moulin Prasanth Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
TANGEDCO,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 002.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
Udumalpet Electricity Distribution circle,
TANGEDCO,
Udumalpet. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for entire
records pertaining to the order of the second respondent vide his
proceedings letter No.16037/434/Nia/Nir.1/udavi.1.Ka.Va.Ve/2019 dated
29.07.2019 and quash the same and thereby direct the respondents to
provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds in any
suitable post consequent on the death of his father on 23.05.2015 while in
service of the respondents.
For petitioner : Mr.A.R.Suresh
For respondents : Mr.K.Rajkumar
Standing Counsel
for TANGEDCO
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 7
W.P.No.7870 of 2020
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the
respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in any
suitable post consequent to the death of this father, who died in harness.
2. The petitioner's father was serving as a Mazdoor in the Central
stores at Udumalpet. He died in harness on 23.05.2015 leaving behind his
wife Thilagam, the petitioner G.Moulin Prasanth and another two sons as
his legal heirs.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner had applied for an appointment on
compassionate ground. But his application was rejected on the ground that
his mother was working as a Supervisor or Superintendent Grade II at
Udumalpet Child Development Centre and she was relieved from the post
of Anganwadi worker on 02.04.2018, thereby rejecting his consideration
for appointment on compassionate ground.
4. In the counter affidavit of the respondents, the respondents stated
that as per the Board proceedings in B.P.No.330 (Administrative Branch),
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7870 of 2020
dated 02.11.1993, G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour and Employment Department
dated 16.07.1993 which is read as under:
"It is considered that if a member of the family is
already in employment and supports the family then the
restriction that if there is already any earning member in the
family of the Government servant who died in harness, the
other dependents of the deceased Government servant will not
be eligible for compassionate appointment may be applied.
When a dependent of the family is employed, the factors to be
ascertained are, whether he is regularly employed and is
actually supporting the family. If that person was employed
even before the death of the Government servant and was
living separately without extending any help to the family then
the case of other eligible dependent will be considered."
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner's mother was a part time employee and he relied upon the
judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 28.03.2022 in
R.Tirupathi vs The Chairman cum Managing Director and others
(W.A.No.599 of 2022), wherein it is held that part time employment
cannot be interpreted that, a person is employed on a permanent basis. As
long as, the other dependents of the deceased employee, who are in
employment are not in a permanent job, beneficial interpretation has to be
given to B.P.(Ch) No.330, dated 02.11.1993 and the petitioner should be
considered for compassionate appointment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7870 of 2020
6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents
attracted attention of this Court to FB TANGEDCO Proceedings No.11
dated 11.06.2020, which is applicable to the facts of the case. According to
him, compassionate appointment will not be considered if the member of
the deceased family is already in regular employment.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that,
the petitioner did not deny the fact that his mother was working as a
Anganwadi worker. Only at the later point of time i.e., in the year 2018
she was promoted to the post of Supervisor or Superintendent Grade II at
Udumalpet Child Development Centre. Further the Director ICDSS,
Dharapuram has issued a certificate and stated that the petitioner's mother
was occupying only a part time post and her appointment was never a full
time employment. For the purpose of considering the petitioner for
compassionate appointment, the status of the family as on the date of death
of the employee has to be taken into consideration. Further more, as on the
date of death of the deceased employee, the petitioner's mother was only a
part time Anganwadi worker and even according to the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the respondents, the benefits cannot be extended
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7870 of 2020
when there is already an earning member in the family of the deceased,
Government servants. Even in that case, if the deceased, employed
member of the deceased Government servant's family has been living
separately without extending financial help to other members, the case of
other eligible dependents for appointment can be considered.
8. The object of providing compassionate appointment for any one
of the dependents of the deceased employee is to secure the family from
sudden loss of income and discomfort suffered by the family of the
deceased. Even though the mother of the petitioner was earning a meager
pay as in her capacity as a Anganwadi worker, the deceased Government
employee had three sons and the petitioner is the eldest of all. During the
death of the employee, the mother of the petitioner was only a part time
Anganwadi worker and the said facts have been confirmed by the
respondents themselves, with the documents available.
9. In such case it is not fair on the part of the respondents to deny
the benefits claimed by the petitioner for compassionate appointment. In
the judgment relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, it is clearly held
that the part time employment cannot be interpreted as an employment on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7870 of 2020
permanent basis.
In view of the above stated reasons, the order passed by the second
respondent in letter No.016037/434/Nia/Nir.1/udavi.1.Ka.Va.Ve/2019
dated 29.07.2019 is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to
provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds in any
suitable post.
Accordingly, this Writ Wetition stands allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.10.2023
vca
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
To:
1. The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
TANGEDCO,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 002.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
Udumalpet Electricity Distribution circle,
TANGEDCO,
Udumalpet.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7870 of 2020
R.N.MANJULA,J.
vca
W.P.No.7870 of 2020
06.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
