Madras High Court

Princy Udhaya vs The Secretary To The Government Of Tamil ... on 6 June, 2025

                                                                                     W.P.(MD)No.2102 of 2025

                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                     RESERVED ON                  :      03.06.2025

                                     PRONOUNCED ON                :       06.06.2025

                                                       CORAM:

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

                                        W.P.(MD) No.2102 of 2025



                     Princy Udhaya                                                       ... Petitioner


                                                            Vs.


                     1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu,
                        Electricity Department,
                        Chennai.

                     2.The Chairman,
                       Tamil Nadu Electricity Board /TANGEDCO,
                       Anna Salai,
                       Chennai.

                     3.The Superintending Engineer,
                       Tamil Nadu Electricity Board/TANGEDCO,
                       Mettur Distribution Circle,
                       Mettur Dam-1,
                       Salem District.                                                 ... Respondents


                     PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
                     records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the third
                     respondent herein in his proceedings in Ka.No.006999/417/Ni.Pi.
                     1/U.3/Ko.Va.Ve/Karu.No.02/2023               dated         28.07.2023       and      a
                     consequential     proceedings           in       Ka.No.008343/474/Ni.Pi.1/U.

                     1/10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis            ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:42:37 pm )
                                                                                             W.P.(MD)No.2102 of 2025

                     3/Ko.Va.Ve/Karu.No.02/2023,                   dated         29.08.2023        and     Ka.No.
                     481/Ni.Pi.1/U.3/Ko.Mu.Tha.Pi/2023 dated 31.08.2023 and quash
                     the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to
                     provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds
                     forthwith.


                                       For Petitioner           : Mr. V.Meenakshi Sundaram
                                       For Respondent-1 : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran, AGP
                                       For Respondent         : Mr.S.Arivalagan
                                       Nos.2 & 3                Standing Counsel


                                                              ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the orders dated

28.07.2023, 29.08.2023 and 31.08.2023, whereby the petitioner's

application for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected

and for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant

compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Additional Government Pleader & learned Standing Counsel,

appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 & 3 respectively.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner seeks appointment on compassionate ground, as her

father, who was employed as a Junior Engineer-II Grade/Elecl. in the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:42:37 pm )

third respondent circle, died in harness on 15.03.2020 due to ill-

health. He further contended that the petitioner taking into account

the financial crisis of the family, made an application for

compassionate appointment on 17.07.2023 on attaining majority on

16.07.2023 as her brother is a minor and on receiving the consent

of 'no objection' from her mother. Inspite of the same, the third

respondent without considering the financial crisis on the loss of the

breadwinner of the family, allegedly rejected her application on the

ground that it was not submitted within the stipulated period of

three years from the date of her father's demise and the petitioner

has not attained the age of 18 years as the prescribed time limit of

submission of the application was on 14.03.2023. Aggrieved by the

orders of rejection, the petitioner has approached this Court by

filing the present Writ Petition.

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents submitted that the petitioner has not submitted the

application for compassionate appointment within the stipulated

period of three years from the date of her father's demise and she

has also not attained the age of 18 years at the date of submission

of the said application. He further submitted that as per the orders

issued under the Scheme in (Per) TANGEDCO Pro. No.11 (Adm.Br)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:42:37 pm )

dated 11.06.2020, a person will be eligible for appointment on

compassionate ground only at the time of application, the candidate

should have completed 18 years age and the application should be

made within the period of three years from the date of death of the

employee. Moreover, in the present case on hand, the petitioner

has not fulfilled any of the conditions, with reference to completion

of minimum age as on the date of submission of application.

5. This Court had considered the submissions made by the

respective counsels on either side and also perused the materials

available on record.

6. On a bare reading of the case reveals that the petitioner

has submitted her application for compassionate ground on

attaining majority on 17.07.2023 which has been rejected by the

third respondent on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to

seek the relief of appointment on compassionate ground since the

petitioner has not submitted the application within the prescribed

period of limitation and was also not attained majority on the date

of submission of the application as per the orders issued under the

Scheme in (Per) TANGEDCO Pro.No.11 (Adm.Br) dated 11.06.2020.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:42:37 pm )

At this stage, it is relevant for this Court to cite the decisions

supporting that a minor can seek compassionate appointment after

attaining majority and the following judgments are as follows:

(i) Rajesh Nath Vs. The State of Assam and 8 others in WP(C)/3290/2020.The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:

“13. But in the instant case, the father of the petitioner died on 27.07.2009 at which point of time, the petitioner was 16 years few months and therefore was short of being a major by about one year and few months. Further, immediately upon attaining majority, the petitioner had submitted the application for compassionate appointment on 28.10.2011. The factual narration in the instant case also satisfies the requirement that the application of the petitioner was made as expeditiously as possible as the circumstance warranted and in the given circumstance, no further delay is noticed in making the application although technically speaking, it may not have been made within the period of one year as prescribed for such application.







https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis               ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:42:37 pm )





                                         (ii)R.Sridevi        Vs.       The        Secretary        to

Government and 2 others, in W.P.No.9528 of 2008. The relevant portion of order is extracted hereunder:

“10.In the case of G.Vijayaraghavan vs. General Manager (P) Indian Bank (2000 (3) LLN 625), this Court has directed the Indian Bank to consider the claim of the petitioner therein, who made an application on attaining majority for employment on compassionate ground. The principle laid down in the said decision is that irrespective of settlement of full term service, gratuity and other benefits, the eligible person can claim appointment on compassionate grounds. Further, in the case of Balbir Kaur vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2000 (6) SCC 493), the legal proposition is that in the case of appointment, considering the social and economic justice as enshrined in the Constitution, denial of deserving cases are liable to be set aside. It is further observed therein that the purpose of providing compassionate ground appointment to a son or daughter or a near relative of the deceased government servant is to render assistance to the family, which is found in indigent circumstances. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:42:37 pm )

Supreme Court, in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain vs. State of Bihar and others ((2006) 9 SCC 195), holding that in the rules framed by the State, there is no specific provision as to what should be done in case the dependants are minors and there would be any relaxation of age in case they did not attain majority within the prescribed period for submitting application, allowed the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

11.In a similar circumstance, in the case of M.Uma vs. Chief Engineer (Personnel), TNEB, Chennai, (2010) 7 MLJ 644, wherein the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that she has not submitted the same within three years, this court, taking into account the indigent circumstances of the family directed the respondents therein to consider the claim of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment without reference to the objection raised in the impugned order. Also are cases in Mohanambal vs. The Director, Land & Survey Department and R.Prasath vs. The Secretary, Labour and Employment Department and others, wherein, this court has held that the application for appointment on compassionate grounds is not to be rejected on

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 02:42:37 pm )

the ground that it was filled after a lapse of time and the application is to be considered on its own merits.”

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in

the light of the orders of this Court as stated supra and also taking

into account, the submissions of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner has submitted the application on

attainment of majority on 17.07.2023 on the next date of attaining

majority and it is to be noted that the prescribed period of limitation

is on 15.03.2023, which is not a longer period and further,

considering the social and economic status of the family of the

deceased, her claim for compassionate appointment deserves to be

reconsidered. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned

orders passed by the third respondent dated 28.07.2023,

29.08.2023 and 31.08.2023 are set aside and the matter is