SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 683

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
K. Lokesh - Appellant
Versus
The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., Chennai 7 Others - Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 2847 of 2019
Decided On : 05-03-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :S.N. Ravichandran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Fakkir Mohideen, Advocate.

Compassionate appointment must be strictly followed in accordance with the relevant schemes and guidelines, and any deviation from the scheme is not permissible.

Headnote:

Compassionate Appointment - Employment Assistance - B.P.(FB).No.46, dated 13.10.1995, Memo No.038525/587/G8/G82/2001-2, dated 24.05.2001 - 2011 (4) SCC 209 - W.P.(MD).No.7016 of 2011 - [Compassionate Appointment] - [Employment Assistance] - [B.P.(FB).No.46, dated 13.10.1995, Memo No.038525/587/G8/G82/2001-2, dated 24.05.2001] - The court dismissed the Writ Appeal, upholding the rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment on the ground of delay and in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the respondents/TANGEDCO. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India and a Full Bench decision of the court in W.P.(MD).No.7016 of 2011, which emphasized that compassionate appointment must be strictly followed in accordance with the relevant schemes and guidelines, and any deviation from the scheme is not permissible.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant's father, a TANGEDCO employee, passed away, and the appellant sought compassionate appointment. The application was rejected due to delay in submission and failure to meet the conditions of the relevant scheme.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the Writ Appeal, upholding the rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment on the ground of delay and in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the respondents/TANGEDCO.

Issues: Delay in submission of compassionate appointment application, compliance with the relevant scheme and guidelines.

Ratio Decidendi: Compassionate appointment must be strictly followed in accordance with the relevant schemes and guidelines, and any deviation from the scheme is not permissible.

Final Decision: The Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

JUDGMENT :

R. Subbiah, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 26.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22036 of 2019, on the file of this Court.

This Writ Appeal is filed as against the order dated 26.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition in W.P.No.22036 of 2019 which was filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent in Lr.No.31307 / 722 / Ku.Tha.Po. / Vae / Ni.Pi.3 / U2 / Va.Vay / 2019, dated 25.02.2019, which was confirmed by the order of the third respondent passed in Lr.No.27336/Ni.Pi.3/U2/2013, dated 15.12.2013, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to provide suitable employment to the appellant/writ petitioner on compassionate grounds.

2. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 26.07.2019, in and by which, while considering all the aspects pertaining to compassionate appointment, as delivered in W.P.(MD).Nos.4129, 7045, 16624 and 20786 of 2014 and W.P.(MD).Nos.19455 and 19530 of 2018 (S.Gowtham Balu Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai), dated 24.09.2018 and also taking note of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India, reported in 2011 (4) SCC 209, held as follows:

    “8. That apart, this Court has also held that back-door entry should be prevented. In the case on hand, the Petitioner is seeking Compassionate appointment not on account of the demise of his mother, but on account of his father’s demise on 07.08.2011. According to the Petitioner, his mother did not seek for compassionate appointment within three years of the Petitioner’s demise for the reason that she is an illiterate. When there is no educational qualification specified as mandatory for Class IV employment, it is clear that the Petitioner and his mother have knowingly missed the bus. While so, the Petitioner cannot belatedly make a representation to the authorities and seek compassionate appointment that he has attained majority now. Also, it is seen that the Petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment on 27.11.2018 has been rejected by the impugned letter dated 25.02.2019.

9. In view of the above, this Court does not find any reason warranting interference with the orders impugned in this Writ Petition. Hence, this Writ Petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs.”

3. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the present Writ Appeal are as follows:

    (a) The appellant/writ petitioner’s father was working as a contract labourer for several years in the respondent-TANGEDCO (Tamil Nadu Electricity Board). After several years of continuous service, he was made permanent as Helper in the year 1997 and was subsequently promoted as Wireman and posted in the Office of Assistant Engineer (O & M), Gandhinagar/West, Vellore Electricity Distribution Circle. While he was in service, he died due to illness on 07.08.2011 at the age of 42 years. On his demise, the appellant/writ petitioner’s father left behind his parents, wife, two sons, including the appellant/writ petitioner as his legal heirs. At the time of the death of the appellant/writ petitioner’s father, the appellant/writ petitioner was aged about 12 years.

(b) It is the further case of the appellant/writ petitioner that his father was the only bread-winner of his family. After his demise, the appellant/writ petitioner’s mother was unable to maintain the family without any income and that his family had to struggle even for sustaining a living. Furthermore, the appellant/writ petitioner’s mother is an illiterate. Hence, she made a representation, dated 14.11.2013 to the third respondent seeking compassionate appointment for the appellant/writ petitioner. On 18.11.2013, the said representation/application was submitted in the prescri

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top