N. Kavichakkaranu vs The District Collector

R. Mahadevan, J.—The father of the petitioner, who was working as Village Assistant [Thalaiyari], died in harness, on 24.11.1997, leaving behind his wife, daughter and son as his legal heirs. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner was a minor, and hence, his mother applied before the respondent seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The request of the mother of the petitioner was negatived on the ground that she does not possess required educational qualification. Thereafter, on attaining majority and possessing 12th standard qualification, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground, on 26.10.2009. Since no order has been passed so far, the petitioner is before this Court with the present Writ Petition.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the family of the petitioner has been living in indigent circumstances. The mother of the petitioner, being illiterate, was ineligible to apply and the petitioner, after attaining majority, had submitted application within three years and the same is kept pending without passing any orders, and hence, appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders.

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that as the mother of the petitioner failed to submit application within three years from the date of death of her husband, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered, and therefore, sought the dismissal of the Writ Petition.

I have considered the above submissions and perused the records carefully.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner had submitted the application within three years from the date of attaining majority. The petitioner, who submitted the application within three years from the date of attaining majority, cannot be faulted with. This Court is of the view that the limitation for a minor child can be applied from the date of his/her majority, for the simple reason that the object of providing employment to the family of the employee, who died in harness, must be treated with compassion and mercy.

This Court, in S.Nagarajan Vs. The Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Maharaja Nagar, Tirunelveli - 627 002, [W.P(MD)No.15658 of 2012, dated 04.04.2014], on a careful consideration of the decisions of this Court, in Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle v. V.Jaya reported in (2007) 6 MLJ 1011, J. Jeba Mary Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, The Chief Engineer (Personnel) and The Superintending Engineer , and P. Sathiaraman Vs. The Secretary to Government, The Chief Engineer and The Superintending Engineer, , has held as follows:-

The above Judgment is squarely applicable to the present case. Admittedly, in the present case, the widow of the deceased has submitted the application within time and the application seeking appointment for the petitioner was submitted within 3 years after attaining majority. Nothing is brought before this Court to show that the family is not in indigent circumstances and this Court is of the opinion that the widow of the deceased must have appointed on compassionate grounds in some job based on her qualification. This Court is also of the view that when a person cannot be employed in government services before the completion of 18 years, he could not make an application seeking appointment during his period of minority. Therefore, the period of three years for a minor son/daughter can commence only after he/she attains majority. Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, the application made on behalf of the son cannot be treated as time barred.

In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings of the respondent dated 31.01.2011 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to produce a certificate from the competent authority to the effect that his family is in indigent circumstance as on today, within four weeks and submit the same before second respondent and on receipt of the same, the second respondent shall pass order appointing the petitioner in any suitable post within two weeks therefrom.

Following the said decision, the respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and pass appropriate orders, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The Writ Petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.