The main legal point established in the judgment is that requests for compassionate appointment should be considered as a continuation of the original application, and rejections based on delay and age may not be justified.

1. This writ appeal is filed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 13.09.2010, dismissing the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.13980 of 2009, wherein the appellant herein prayed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the order passed by the third respondent, rejecting the request for providing compassionate appointment, and to quash the same and also for a direction to provide suitable employment opportunity to him.

2. The appellant herein is the son of Late Palaniyandi. According to the appellant, his father was working as Reading Inspector in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board under the jurisdiction of the third respondent at Vaiyampatti. He died on 11.07.1998, while he was in service. When his father died, he was a minor and his mother did not have any other source of income to maintain the family. His mother submitted an application to the respondents on 09.08.2001, requesting them to provide any appointment on compassionate ground. Since there was no response, she sent another representation on 27.05.2003. The third respondent, by proceedings dated 10.11.2003, rejected her request for compassionate appointment on the ground that she has not applied within three years from the date of death of her husband. Again, she submitted a representation on 03.08.2005, seeking to provide any suitable employment. The third respondent, by proceedings dated 18.08.2005, rejected her request on the ground that she has not completed eighth standard and that the appellant herein has not attained majority at that time. The said order was challenged in the writ petition.

3. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 13.09.2010 dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this writ appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the widow applied for appointment on compassionate ground and since she did not complete eighth standard, she was not appointed and the request for appointment was perused by the appellant herein, who had not attained majority at that time and subsequently applied within three years of his attaining majority and therefore, the request is to be considered for providing compassionate appointment.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents 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 in E. Ramasamy v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Others, 2007 WLR 796 : (2006) 4 MLJ 1080.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that since there are contrary decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, E. Ramasamy v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Others 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, where under in similar circumstances, one of us (NPVJ), relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court directed TNEB to appoint the son of a deceased employee on compassionate ground.

7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of either counsel and perused the materials available on record and the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.

8. In T. Meer Ismail Ali v. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai, 2004 (3) CTC 120 : (2004) 4 MLJ 238 this Court 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 T. Meer Ismail Ali v. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai (cited supra) was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.N