Successive applications filed by sons of deceased employee cannot be rejected on technical grounds.

F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.

Appellant is the wife of one Thiru.P.Periyasamy who was employed as a line inspector in the respondent board and who died in harness on 15.11.1996. After his death, an application was made by the appellant for compassionate appointment for her elder son by an application dated 07.04.1997. After calling for details through a communication dated 09.07.1997, the third respondent rejected the claim for compassionate appointment for the elder son by a communication dated 05.12.1998 on the ground that the elder son of the appellant was over aged.

2. Thereafter, on 11. 11. 1999, the appellant applied for compassionate appointment for her younger son. The said application was forwarded to the second respondent. Her younger son by name Navamani himself made an application on 1.4.2000, along with no objection letters from his other brothers, seeking compassionate appointment. In the said application, details were again called for by the respondent board through its communication dated 10.4.2000. It is relevant to note that though appellants younger son Navamani applied for compassionate appointment on 11.11.1999 he became major only on 15.3.2000. Nevertheless, his application dated 11.11.1999 was renewed by a personal application made by Navamani himself on 1.4.2000. The claim for such compassionate appointment came to be rejected by the second respondent by a communication dated 24.9.2001 on the ground that the present claim for compassionate appointment for the younger son cannot be considered since he had not completed 18 years within three years period and he had not satisfied the educational qualification of a pass in the 8th standard. It was also stated therein that the application was not made within three years.

3. The third respondent also reiterated the same reasons while rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment in his communication dated 12.7.2002. The appellant preferred the present writ petition challenging the above communication and the learned single Judge of this Court, by relying upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court reported in National Hydroelectric, Power Corporation and another v. Nanak Chand and another National Hydroelectric, Power Corporation and another v. Nanak Chand and another National Hydroelectric, Power Corporation and another v. Nanak Chand and another AIR 2005 SC 106: (2004) 12 SCC 487: 2005-I-LLJ-240: 2005-3-L.W. 66, held that the claim of the appellant cannot be considered as it was belated in point of time.

4. Mr. Chitharanjandas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the appellants case cannot be construed as one of belated claim since immediately after the death of her husband, an application was preferred on 7.4.1997 for her elder son and since the same was rejected on the ground that he was over aged, the appellant made a subsequent application for her younger son on 11.11.1999, who became major only on 15.3.2000. According to the learned counsel since the appellant was diligently agitating her representation for compassionate appointment right from 7.4.1997 till the filing of the last application on 1.4.2000 for her younger son, the respondents were not justified in rejecting the said claim on the ground of delay as well as on the ground that her younger son also did not become major at the time of the second application. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court as well as that of a learned single Judge reported in Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu. Electricity Board and another v. K.Lakshmi Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu. Electricity Board and another v. K.Lakshmi Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu. Electricity Board and another v. K.Lakshmi , 2005 WLR 256, P. Ravi v. Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another P. Ravi v. Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another P. Ravi v. Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil