A. Kamatchi vs The Chairman, The Chief Engineer and The Superintending Engineer

P. Devadass, J.—The appellant challenges dismissal of his Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No. 2374 of 2010, wherein he sought for direction to

the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground. Appellant''s father Arumugam served as a Technical Assistant in the Tamil Nadu

Electricity Board. Arumugam died in harness on 12.12.1980. Appellant''s mother Thirumalai sought for appointment on compassionate ground. On

6.9.1983, the second respondent informed her that there is no vacancy. When she sought for appointment to her son/appellant, she was informed

that he shall apply on attaining 18 years of his age.

Appellant passed +2 examination. He was born on 5.6.1981. On 28.10.1999, within three years of his attaining 18 years of age, he applied for

appointment. The TNEB officials verified his Educational Certificate. The appellant submitted all the required particulars. Genuineness of his

Educational Certificate was confirmed. Yet, on 3.3.2000, he was informed that his request is rejected, since his father died more than 15 years

ago. Again, on 22.5.2003, 14.07.2005, 14.4.2007, 18.2.2008, 21.10.2008 and 18.6.2009, he renewed his request for appointment. But, no

action was taken.

In the circumstances, he approached this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 13375 of 2009. On 16.12.2009, this Court directed the respondents to

consider appellant''s representation, dated 24.2.2009, on merits within a prescribed time. On 21.5.2010, the appellant made further

representation. However, on 1.2.2010, the third respondent rejected the appellant''s request, since he had not applied within three years from the

date of death of his father.

In the circumstances, appellant directed the present Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No. 2374 of 2010 for a direction to the respondents to appoint

him on compassionate ground. On 13.9.2010, the Writ Court holding that the appellant has no vested right to seek such appointment, dismissed

his writ petition. Aggrieved, the appellant has directed this writ appeal.

According to the learned counsel for the appellant, within three years of death of her husband the appellant''s mother applied for her

appointment on compassionate ground. It was not rejected. She continuously requested them to appoint her. And thereafter, her son/appellant

sought for appointment. But, without any acceptable reason, this request has been rejected by the respondents. The learned counsel further

submitted that within three years of his attaining majority, appellant applied for appointment. It could be deemed as continuation of his mother''s

petition. However, this has not been considered by the TNEB in proper perspective. Thus, the dismissal of the appellant''s writ petition by the Writ

Court is unsustainable in law.

According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the request of the appellant for appointment on compassionate ground is hopelessly

barred by long delay. Further, the appellant did not apply within three years of death of his father.

We have anxiously considered the rival submissions. Perused the materials on record, the impugned order of TNEB and of the Writ Court.

The facts are not in dispute. Let us notice, the decisions on the point and resolve the tangle posed before us.

In . T. Meer Ismail Ali Vs. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, a learned Single

Judge of this Court, now, Hon''ble Mr. Justice F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, Judge, Supreme Court of India, held as under:-

I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner''s case deserve consideration inasmuch as he had diligently made a claim once in the year 1997 and

thereafter, immediately after attaining the age of 18, in the year 2000 and in such circumstances, rejection of his application on the ground that it

was not made within three years was not justified.

The decision of this Court in MEER ISMAIL ALI (cited supra) was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 48 of 2004 dated

01.12.2004. Subsequently, the SLP filed against it was also dismissed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in C.A. No. 6387 of 2004, on 04.04.2005.

Another Division Bench of this Court in Selvi. R. Anbarasi Vs. The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and The

Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, held as follows:-

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a similar issue, rejecting the compassionate ground appointment on the ground that the

application was submitted beyond three years and the same was rejected earlier on the ground that the petitioner therein has not completed 18

years of age, was considered by this Court in W.P. No. 1584 of 2011 and this Court held that the applications having been made within a period

of three yeas and the same having not been considered on the ground that the petitioner therein was not 18 years of age at that time, the

subsequent application cannot be rejected on the ground that the application was submitted within three years. The learned Judge directed the

respondents not to treat the second application as an application for compassionate appointment, but it is to be treated as continuation of the

application originally submitted. The said judgment is reported in T. Meer Ismail Ali Vs. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and The Superintending

Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, This Court, ultimately, directed the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner

therein.

In E. Ramasamy Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, a Division Bench of this Court negatived the request of the writ petitioner, who was a

minor when his father died in harness and who subsequently, applied for appointment on compassionate ground, however, within 3 years of his

attaining majority. This decision was overturned by the Hon''ble Apex Court. This has been noted in Mohanambal Vs. Director, Land and Survey

Department, Kancheepuram District and Others,

The very same issue has been dealt with elaborately by one of us (N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.) in the following cases, wherein, my learned

Brother relied on certain Division Bench decisions and also decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court.

Mohanambal Vs. Director, Land and Survey Department, Kancheepuram District and Others,

J. Jeba Mary Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, The Chief Engineer (Personnel) and The Superintending Engineer

G. Saravanakumar VS. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai [2011 (2) CWC 83]

R. Prasath V. The Secretary, Labour and Employment Dept., Chennai (W.P. No. 3078 of 2006, dated 17.06.2010)

M. Uma V. The Chief Engineer (Personnel) Chennai (W.P.(MD). No. 4050 of 2006, dated 29.06.2010)

My learned Brother in his said decisions reviewed the case-law on the point and held that within 3 years of death of her husband, when the

widow applied for appointment on compassionate ground, and due to bar of age etc., when she could not be appointed and the request for

appointment has been followed by her son/daughter, who has then not attained majority and subsequently, applied within three years of attaining

majority, such request shall be considered as continuation of their mother''s application and the application given by him/her during the minority also

could be considered as continuation of such earlier application and it cannot be denied on the ground that the application has been presented

beyond 3 years of death of the father.

Now, cleared of the legal position, it is pertinent to note that within three years of her husband''s death, Thirumalai, the mother of the appellant

has applied for her appointment on compassionate ground, she was not appointed for want of vacancy, so, she was not denied job, now, she

cannot be appointed because of her age, within three years of his attaining majority the appellant had applied for appointment. The legal heirs of the

deceased employee, namely, appellant''s mother and his sister have also given their no objection for appellant''s appointment. The appellant is also

well within the eligible age for appointment. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 1.2.2010 and of the Writ

Court, dated 13.9.2010 are unsustainable in law. In the result, this Writ Appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the third respondent, dated

1.2.2010 and of the Writ Court, dated 13.9.2010 made in W.P.(MD) No. 2374 of 2010, are set aside. The appellant is directed to produce a

certificate from the competent authority as to the indigent circumstances of his family within four weeks to the third respondent and on receipt of

the same, the respondents shall appoint him in any suitable post within four weeks therefrom. No costs.