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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2335

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
M. Vasanth - Petitioner 
Versus
The Chairman cum Managing Director, Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. No.34437 of 2018
Decided On : 28-11-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. G. Ananda Kumar for M/s. Thamizharasi Law Firm
For the Respondents: Mr. K. Rajkumar, Standing Counsel

Compassionate appointments should consider actual hardships faced by dependants rather than strict adherence to procedural timelines, promoting social justice and support for indigent families.

Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the rejection of his application for compassionate appointment. It was contended that the application was denied based on the lapse of three years from the employee's death, ignoring a prior application made by the petitioner's mother within that timeframe. The court reaffirmed the principle that compassionate appointments should not be denied on technical grounds and must consider the real hardship faced by the dependants. The petitioner, having become an orphan after both parents' deaths, applied after attaining majority, contending the delay was due to his guardians' demise. The court cited earlier decisions emphasizing a liberal approach in such claims. (Paras 8, 13, 17, 18)

(B) The Court held that the compassionate appointment scheme aims to alleviate the distress faced by families of deceased employees and should not be rigidly applied. The empathetic enforcement of such provisions is essential for social justice and support for indigent families. (Paras 12, 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner's father died on 05.06.2005. His mother applied for compassionate appointment in January 2006. After her death in June 2007, the petitioner applied in April 2018, which was rejected.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner's representation is considered timely given the prior application made by his mother.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the delay due to the petitioner's guardians' demise could affect his claim for compassionate appointment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court stressed that applications for compassionate appointment should be assessed based on the family’s hardship rather than strict adherence to timelines.

Result: Writ Petition is allowed; respondents directed to appoint the petitioner within six weeks.

ORDER :

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

This petition has been filed seeking writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the 3rd respondent's letter made in Letter No.511/NI Pi II/Vu2/Ko.Va.Vay/18 dated 16.05.2018 and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground to any eligible post in the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that his father Murugesan was employed as wireman in the office of the Assistant Engineer, Vazhapadi, South Section under the control of the third respondent. While he was in service, died on 05.06.2005, leaving behind his wife, daughter, 2 sons and mother as his legal heirs. The petitioner's father was the sole breadwinner of his family and due to his sudden death, a vacuum left in his family. The petitioner's mother immediately made a representation dated 20.01.2006 to the third respondent requesting to provide compassionate appointment to her. In reply, the third respondent vide letter dated 04.04.2006 directed the petitioner's mother to furnish the certificates such as death certificate, educational qualification, legal heirship certificate, indigent certificate, etc., and also directed to send the duly filled application form, which was attached along with that letter. Accordingly, the petitioner's mother sent the same to the third respondent.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner's mother also died on 06.06.2007. The petitioner though being an orphan had studied and obtained Diploma in Electrical Electronics Engineering. Thereafter, he made a representation on 18.04.2018 to the third respondent requesting him to provide compassionate appointment. The third respondent by letter dated 16.05.2018 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he had not applied within three years from the date of death of his father, which is a belated one. However, the third respondent failed to note that his mother applied for compassionate on 20.01.2006 i.e., within three years from the date of death of his father. He applied for compassionate appointment as a renewal of his mother's application.

4. The Board issued a memo dated 14.06.1997, wherein it is stated that if the dependant of the deceased did not attain the age of 18 years within 3 years of death of the employee, then he can apply after completion of 18 years of age. The said memo was confirmed by a Division Bench of this court in W.ANo.3050 of 2003, dated 08.03.2006. The third respondent ignoring the said memo had rejected his claim. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

5. No counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner died on 05.06.2005 in harness. The petitioner's mother made a representation on 20.01.2006 to the third respondent requesting to provide compassionate appointment. The said representation was made within one year from the death of her husband. Unfortunately, the mother of the petitioner also died on 06.06.2007. Due to the demise of both the parents, the petitioner became orphan. After obtaining Diploma in Electrical Electronics Engineering, he made representation on 18.04.2018 to the third respondent requesting to provide compassionate appointment. The learned counsel contends that the said representation was rejected by the third respondent on 16.05.2018 on the ground that he did not made representation within 3 years from the date of death of his father.

7. The learned counsel further contends that while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, the third respondent failed to consider the aim and object of the compassionate appointment scheme and it was rejected on technicalities without considering the actual sufferings of the petitioner after the death of both the parents.

8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the application claiming compassionate appointment has to be submitted with

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