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) 2799

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R.N.Manjula, J.
D.Mathavan - Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman cum Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board ANDORS - Respondents
W.P.(MD).No.16134 of 2023
Decided On : 21-06-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms.G.Vidhya Maheswaran
For the Respondent: Mr.B.Ramanathan

The court clarified that applications for compassionate appointment cannot be denied based on age limits for minors, underlining that earlier applications filed by guardians are valid.

Headnote:(A) Compassionate appointment - The rule regarding the age limit for applicants under compassionate appointment schemes - The impugned order was set aside due to misinterpretation of the application timeline in the context of the applicant's minority status - Relevant Government Order G.O.(Ms).No.33 dated 08.03.2023 clarifies that there is no minimum age limit for the applicant on the date of application, but appointment can only be made once the applicant turns 18. (Paras 7, 9, 10)

(B) Limitation for application - Specific statute governing compassionate appointments does not specifically address the issue of age for initial application submission and must be interpreted considering minor status of the applicant. (Paras 6, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, whose father died on 16.03.2008, sought compassionate appointment after his mother made multiple applications on his behalf while he was still a minor. The response was negative, citing the application timeline in relation to his age.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the initial application made by the petitioner's mother was within the three-year limit relevant to the father’s death, and as such, the rejection of the application was unjust.

Issues: The core issues included the interpretation of the application timeline concerning the petitioner’s minority status and the implications of the recent Government Order for compassionate appointments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the initial application was valid despite the applicant's minority status and reaffirmed that the lack of explicit minimum age limits should not preclude consideration of the claim.

Result: Writ Petition allowed; impugned order set aside.

Table of Content
1. compassionate appointment related to deceased employee (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. clarification of age limits for applications (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. impugned order set aside (Para 9)
4. directives to reconsider application (Para 10)

ORDER :

R.N.Manjula, J.

Heard Ms.G.Vidhya Maheswaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.B.Ramanathan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, seeking direction against the third respondent dated 02.05.2023 and consequently direct the respondents to give compassionate appointment in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to the petitioner, according to his educational qualification.

3. Mr.G.Vidhyamaheswaran, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father namely, A.Duraisamy, who was as Mazdoor in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board died in harness on 16.03.2008. At the time of death of the father, the petitioner was 7 years old and his sister was 9 years old. The petitioner's mother submitted applications on 08.02.2011, 08.03.2011, 28.09.2017 and 20.09.2022 seeking for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner has also submitted the application to the respondents on 15.09.2022.

4. However, the impugned order dated 02.05.2023 has been passed by the third respondent, rejecting the application seeking appointment under compassionate scheme by stating that the application has not been filed within three years from the date of death of the deceased employee and at the time when the application was filed, the petitioner has not attained the age of 18 years.

5. The petitioner's father died on 16.03.2008 and the petitioner's mother had given the first application on 08.02.2011 within three years for seeking compassionate appointment for her son, the petitioner herein, who was a minor at that point of time. Obviously, the petitioner being a minor could not have given an application on his own and his mother as a guardian, had given the application on his behalf. Until the petitioner attained majority, no order has been passed on the application filed by the mother.

6. It might be possible that after attaining majority, the petitioner himself has give a representation to consider the earlier application. However, the respondents cannot consider that as the first application in order to count the period of limitation of three years. But, the date of application submitted by the petitioner's mother is well within the period of three years from the date of death of his father.

7. In the recent Government Order issued in G.O.(Ms).No.33, Labour Welfare and Skill Development (Q1) Department, dated 08.03.2023, it is stated that there shall be no minimum age limit for the applicant on the date of application for appointment. However, no appointment shall not be provided unless the applicant completes 18 years age. For the purpose of clarity, the above Rule is extracted as under:

“6. Age limit-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules governing the post for which appointment on compassionate grounds is to be made, on the date of application for appointment.

(a) the spouse of the deceased or medically invalidated Government Servant or the parent of the deceased Government servant, must not have completed fifty years of age; and (b)the son, daughter, brother or sister of the deceased or medically invalidated Government servant must not have completed forty years of age.

2) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules governing the post for which appointment on compassionate grounds is to be made, there shall be no minimum age limit for the applicant on the date of application for appointment.

Provided that appointment shall not be provided unless the applicant completes eighteen years of age.”

8. Mr.B.Ramanatha, learned Standing Counsel, for the respondents, considered that the scheme for giving compassionate appointment by the respondents would be governed under the TANGEDCO proceedings in (Per)

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