Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 2244
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR & P. DEVADASS, JJ.
The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Others
Versus
N. Elavarasan
W.A.(MD).No. 682 of 2010
Decided On : 02-07-2013
For the Appellants :M. Balasubramanian, Advocate.
For the Respondent:D. Shanmugaraja Sethupathy, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a request for appointment on compassionate grounds could be considered as a continuation of the original application, and it cannot be denied solely based on the timing of the application.
Headnote:
Compassionate Ground - Appointment - TNEB Standing Orders - 46 (Ni.Ni.) - 1995 - 2007 WLR 796 - 2011 (3) LLN 405 (Mad) - 2004 (3) CTC 120 - 2006 (2) M.L.J., 200 - 2011 (2) MLJ 47 - 2006 (9) SCC 195 - 2011 (3) LLN 405 - 2011 (2) CWC 83 - W.P.No.3078 of 2006 - W.P. (MD). No. 4050 of 2006
Fact of the Case:
The respondent's father died in harness in 1997, and the respondent's mother sought appointment on compassionate grounds. After several attempts, the respondent applied for appointment after attaining 18 years, but the request was rejected by TNEB based on standing orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered previous decisions and held that the request for appointment on compassionate grounds could be considered as a continuation of the mother's application, and it cannot be denied on the ground that the application was presented beyond 3 years of the father's death.
Issues: The main issue was whether the request for appointment on compassionate grounds by the respondent was valid under TNEB standing orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous decisions and held that the request for appointment on compassionate grounds could be considered as a continuation of the mother's application, and it cannot be denied on the ground that the application was presented beyond 3 years of the father's death.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, and the order of the Writ Court directing TNEB to provide appointment on compassionate grounds to the respondent was upheld. The respondent was directed to produce a Certificate from the competent authority to prove indigent circumstances, and upon receipt, TNEB was directed to appoint him in any suitable post within two weeks.
P. Devadass, J.
This appeal has been directed as against the order of the Writ Court, dated 13.11.2009 passed in W.P.(MD).No.3909 of 2009, whereunder, the appellants/Tamilnadu Electricity Board (TNEB) officials have been directed to provide appointment on compassionate ground to the respondent/writ petitioner, within prescribed time.
2. The afore-said order came to be passed quashing TNEB's letter No.0843-1/ni.pi.1/U.4/Ko.Va.ve/2007, dated 20.06.2007, whereunder the request of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that he has applied beyond three years of his father's death.
3. Facts in brief :
i) On 16.06.1997, respondent's father died in harness. On 18.11.1997, his widow sought for appointment on compassionate ground. Then she was 45 years old. Thereafter, there were many clarifications and returns by TNEB and they were also responded to by her. As per the Board's Standing Orders, appointment on compassionate ground could be given up to 50 years of age. By April, 2004 she was about to cross her 53 years. Then, she sought job for her son/writ petitioner. She was informed by the officials that since her son was below 18 years, he cannot be appointed. However, she pursued it stating that within few months he is to attain his majority.
ii) On 19.07.2006, few days after attaining 18 years, the writ petitioner applied for appointment enclosing his mother's no objection. On 20.03.2007, also he reiterated his request submitting another application. But, no response. In the circumstances, he filed W.P.(MD).No.3887 of 2007 for issuance of Mandamus. On 24.04.2007, this Court directed TNEB to consider his representation dated 20.03.2007 and pass orders within 8 weeks. On 20.06.2007, second respondent passed orders based on Board's Standing order No. 46 (Ni.Ni.), dated 13.10.1995, rejecting the request of the widow as she is above 50 years and also her son's request as he had applied 3 years after his father's death.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be given dehors the circulars and orders of TNEB. Further, providing appointment to a person on compassionate ground after his attaining majority will amount to keeping a post reserved for him till he attains majority. In this respect, the learned counsel relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court inE.RAMASAMY V. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORTHERS [2007 WLR 796].
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner contended that since there are contrary decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, RAMASAMY's case (supra) is no longer good law. The learned counsel also cited J.JEBA MARY V. THE CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD [2011 (3) LLN 405 (Mad)], whereunder in similar circumstances, a learned Single Judge, relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court directed TNEB to appoint the son of a deceased employee on compassionate ground.
6. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions. Perused the materials on record, the impugned order of TNEB and of the writ Court and the decisions cited.
7. The facts are not in dispute. Let us notice, the decisions on the point and resolve the tangle posed before us.
8. In T.MEER ISMAIL ALI V. The TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOAR, CHENNAI, (2004 (3) CTC 120) 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."
9. 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
