Compassionate appointments must adhere to strict timelines and cannot be claimed as a right, emphasizing the need for timely applications to address immediate financial crises.

JUDGMENT :

P. VADAMALAI, J.

Prayer :- Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent, to set aside the order passed in W.P(MD)No.10536 of 2014, dated 20.08.2019 on the file of this Court.

This Writ Appeal is preferred by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.10536 of 2014 challenging the order, dated 20.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the Writ Petition for seeking direction to the respondents for appointment on compassionate grounds on the death of his father, who was wireman in the respondent TNEB.

2. The facts in brief:

(i) The appellant’s father namely P.Muniasamy was working as a wireman in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and he died on 23.04.2006, while he was in service. The wife of the said P.Muniasamy presented an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on 20.09.2007 and the same was returned on 26.09.2007. As the appellant was a minor at the time of his father’s death, after attaining the age of majority, he submitted an application, dated 25.05.2013 before the 4th respondent, which was rejected on the ground that the appellant’s sister sought appointment on the same compassionate grounds on death of the appellant’s father and the same was rejected on 15.06.2012 and further, the appellant has submitted the application after seven years of death, which is not permissible in the rules of compassionate grounds appointment. Hence, the appellant has moved the Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.10536 of 2014 before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash the said rejection order of the 4th respondent as illegal and to direct the 1st respondent to appoint the appellant on compassionate grounds for any post for which he is eligible.

(ii) The learned Single Judge took the view that the appellant submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds after lapse of 7 years from the date of the death of his father and also in view of the legal principles settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the scheme of compassionate ground cannot be extended after lapse of many years and thereby dismissed the Writ Petition.

3. The order of the learned Single Judge is now under challenge, at the instance of the petitioner in the Writ Petition, as appellant herein.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submitted that the appellant’s father died on 23.04.2006 and since the appellant was a minor then, his mother, namely the wife of the deceased, applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 20.09.2007, but the application was not considered though her mother completed 8th std. Then the mother of the appellant made a representation to the respondents to appoint the appellant on compassionate grounds. The appellant was 12 years at the time of death and hence, after attaining a majority the appellant sought for appointment on compassionate grounds. In such kind of cases, this High Court and the Hon'be Supreme Court have ordered for appointment on compassionate grounds those who filed applications on attaining majority. He relied on the decision reported in 2014 SCC Online Mad 857 in the case of S.Nagarajan vs. Superintending Engineer, (2007) 6 MLJ 1011 in the case of Superintending Engineer, Madurai /v/ V.Jaya and judgment, dated 11.03.2011 passed in the case of V.K.Ramesh /vs/ The Superintending Engineer.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that firstly the wife of the deceased applied for appointment, which was returned for certain defects regarding age and qualification, but the same was not represented. Secondly, the daughter of the deceased presented an application and it was rejected as it was filed beyond three years. Thirdly, now the appellant submitted an application seeking an appointment on compassionate grounds third time, beyond three years. It is a settled proposition of law that the appellant cannot claim as a right of appointment on compassionate grounds bypassing the rules. The appellant