The legal principle established is that the guidelines prevailing at the time of the employee's death should be applied for considering the claim of appointment of a legal heir, and subsequent guidelines cannot be applied unless they clearly state retrospective application.

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.N. Ravichandran, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Fakkir Mohideen, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This Writ Appeal is filed against the order made in Writ Petition No.25585 of 2005 dated 28.11.2007, wherein the order challenged made by the appellant dated 3.6.2004, rejecting her claim for compassionate appointment, was upheld.

3. It is the case of the appellant that her husband A.Palani, while working as Helper in the respondent Board died on 1.7.2001 in a train accident while returning from duty and the said deceased left behind two sons, one daughter and his mother, apart from the appellant as widow. The legal heir certificate was issued by the Tahsildar, Arakonam on 17.7.2001. The Tahsildar, Arakonam also issued a Certificate on 27.5.2002 certifying that the family of the appellant is having no movable and immovable property and the family is getting only a sum of Rs.22,788/- per annum towards the Family Pension.

4. The appellant applied for compassionate appointment on 17.5.2004. As she studied upto 2nd Standard, the said application was rejected by the second respondent on 7.6.2004 stating that the minimum qualification of 8th Standard pass must be available for appointment as Sweeper and the appellant having studied upto 2nd Standard, she is not eligible to be appointed. Apart from that, there is no Sweeper post in the year 2004.

5. The contention of the appellant is that for appointment as Sweeper in the office of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, a person must be able to read and write in Tamil and no other prescribed qualification required for the said post and the appellant having studied upto 2nd Standard, she is able to read and write Tamil. In the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Appeal, the appellant has signed by writing her name in Tamil clearly. The said fact establishes the ability of the appellant to read and write Tamil.

6. The issue now to be decided is as to whether the claim of the appellant can be rejected by virtue of change of the policy from 11.11.2002. The date of death of the appellant’s husband being 1.7.2001, the policy which prevailed then has to be applied for considering the claim of the person seeking compassionate appointment. The said issue is no longer res integra.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maharani Devi and another vs. Union of India and others reported in (2009) 7 SCC 295 submitted that the guidelines, which are in existence on the date of death of the person, alone can be applied for considering the appointment on compassionate grounds of the legal heir of the deceased person and the subsequent guidelines cannot be applied while considering the claim of the person, who is seeking compassionate appointment before the issuance of the subsequent guidelines unless the guidelines clearly state that it is applicable with retrospective effect.

8. In the aforesaid judgment, it is clearly held, the Courts must consider as to whether the date of death of the employee is relevant and the guidelines prevailing on the date of death or the guidelines issued subsequently has to be applied for considering the claim of appointment of a legal heir. The learned counsel for the respondents has not shown the guidelines issued stating about its retrospective application.

9. In the light of the Apex Court order, the appellant is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment as a Sweeper in the Tamil Nadu Generation, Electricity and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), as there is no dispute regarding the legal heirship, indigent circumstances and the ability to read and write Tamil. Hence, the order of rejection of the claim made by the appellant dated 7.6.2004, which was confirmed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and the respondents are directed to issue compassionate appointment to the appellant as Sweeper or any other equivalent post on full ti