Madras High Court
P.S.Rajangam vs The Chairman on 30 October, 2023
W.A.(MD)No.1875 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.A.(MD)No.1875 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.14300 of 2023
P.S.Rajangam ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited,
No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai.
2.The Chief Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited,
No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited, Distribution,
K.Pudur, Madurai District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to set aside
the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.3284 of 2021, dated 06.07.2023 on the file of
this Court.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1875 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr.R.Santhanam
For Respondents : Ms.M.Parameswari
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The claim of the appellant before the Writ Court was to appoint him on
compassionate ground. The father of the writ petitioner, who served in Electricity
Board, died on 06.10.2015, while he was in service. The mother of the writ
petitioner submitted an application initially on 04.10.2018, seeking appointment
on compassionate grounds. The authorities scrutinized the application and found
that the education certificates produced by the mother of the writ petitioner were
bogus and accordingly, rejected her claim for compassionate appointment.
2.Admittedly, the writ petitioner was a minor during the relevant point of
time. On attaining the age of majority, the writ petitioner submitted an application
on 21.05.2020 after lapse of five years from the date of death of the deceased
employee. Thus, the authorities have rejected the application on the ground that
the application submitted beyond the period of three years is not entertainable
under the scheme of compassionate appointment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1875 of 2023
3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly contended that
cause of action continued since the mother of the writ petitioner submitted the
application on 04.10.2018 and thus, the order passed by the authorities are not in
consonance with the scheme.
4.It is not as if one legal heir after another legal heir can file application
seeking compassionate appointment. One application seeking compassionate
appointment is permissible under the scheme and if that application is rejected by
the competent authorities, other legal heirs are not eligible to submit an
application seeking compassionate appointment.
5.The scheme of compassionate appointment is a concession and the
scheme being special one cannot be extended in violation of the terms and
conditions stipulated in the scheme. The very purpose and object of the scheme is
to mitigate the circumstances arisen on account of the sudden death of an
employee. Therefore, the penurious circumstances existing in the family of the
deceased employee and other requirements in consonance with the terms and
conditions of the schemes are to be verified for the purpose of extending the
benefit of appointment on compassionate ground.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1875 of 2023
6.The scheme of compassionate appointment is violative of Articles 14
and 16 of Constitution of India. All the appointments are to be made strictly under
the Constitutional schemes and through open competitive process by following the
procedures as contemplated. Equal opportunity in public employment is the
Constitutional mandate and thus, any other special scheme introduced for the
welfare of the employees is to be granted scrupulously by following the terms and
conditions stipulated and any violations would lead to unconstitutionality and
deprive the constitutional rights of the lakh and lakh of persons, who are all
aspiring to secure public employment through open competitive process.
7.In the present case, admittedly, the mother of the writ petitioner
submitted the application along with bogus certificates, which was rejected. Since
the appellant was a minor during the relevant point of time, on attaining the age of
majority and after lapse of five years from the date of death of the deceased
employee, he submitted the application, which was also rejected. Therefore, we
do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge,
which is well considered and in consonance with the principles settled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1875 of 2023
8.Accordingly, the order passed in the Writ proceedings is confirmed
and the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.S., J.) & (V.L.N., J.)
30.10.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Yuva
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1875 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Yuva
W.A.(MD)No.1875 of 2023
30.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
