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
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
K.Michael Johnson vs. A.P.Southern Power Distribution Company Limited
Balbir Kaur v. Steel Authority of India Limited
Compassionate appointments should consider actual hardships faced by dependants rather than strict adherence to procedural timelines, promoting social justice and support for indigent families.
Compassionate appointments must be evaluated with a humanitarian approach, especially for minors at the time of the employee's death, and rigid application of time limits is not appropriate.
Compassionate appointment applications by dependents should be evaluated on individual hardship rather than strict adherence to submission timelines.
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.
Compassionate appointment applications by minor dependents must be made within prescribed scheme time-limits; failure to adhere bars consideration post-attainment of majority.
Compassionate appointment must be strictly followed in accordance with the relevant schemes and guidelines, and any deviation from the scheme is not permissible.
Compassionate appointment is an exception and a concession, not a right, and should be made strictly in accordance with the rules. Long delays can lead to the rejection of compassionate appointments.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.