Loading...

C.Elankumaran vs The Chairman on 9 March, 2011

Madras High Court
C.Elankumaran vs The Chairman on 9 March, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:09.03.2011

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA

W.P.No.20574 of 2008 and
M.P.No.1 of 2008

C.Elankumaran		       					... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 002.

2.The Chief Engineer, Personnel,
   Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
   144, Anna Salai,
   Chennai - 600 002.

3.The Superintending Engineer,
   Dharmapuri Electricity Distribution Circle,
   Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
   Dharmapuri - 5.						... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 3rd respondent in letter No.11823/410/NI.PI.1/Uu.4/KO.15/07, dated 18.04.2007 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to provide appointment to the petitioner in a suitable post on compassionate grounds within a time frame.
		For Petitioner 	:Mr.G.Ananda Kumar

		For Respondents	:Mr.B.Sekar 

ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the 3rd respondent in letter No.11823/410/NI.PI.1/Uu.4/KO.15/07, dated 18.04.2007 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to provide appointment to the petitioner in a suitable post on compassionate grounds within a time frame.

2. The petitioner’s father Late R.Chelliah, while working as an Assistant Engineer at Morappur (O&M) section under the control of the 3rd respondent, died on 01.04.1996 at the age of 32 years, leaving behind the petitioner, his mother and sister. In view of sudden demise of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner’s family was seriously put to extreme distress, as a result, the petitioner’s mother borrowed huge loan from the bank and till date, the economic condition of the petitioner’s family is precarious. In the meanwhile, after the death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner’s mother applied for getting compassionate appointment on 12.08.1998, but the respondent rejected the request of the petitioner’s mother for compassionate appointment, for the reason that the petitioner’s mother was not having adequate qualification, because she had studied only up to 6th standard, but the minimum qualification required at that time was 8th standard. Further, after the rejection of the petitioner’s mother representation for granting compassionate appointment, once again, well within the three years time from the date of the death of the petitioner’s father, another application was also moved on 17.03.1999, seeking compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the request for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner was made well within the three years after the demise of the petitioner’s father. Inspite of the fact that the said application was filed within the time limit, the respondent rejected the petitioner’s application dated 17.03.1999 stating that the petitioner was under age, therefore, he can apply only after attaining the age of majority. Yet again, another representation was filed on 16.04.2001 to the 3rd respondent. Again the said application met with rejection. After the rejection order passed by the respondent on 23.05.2001, another application was also made on 05.04.2004, but the same was again rejected by order dated 29.05.2004. The reason cited was that the petitioner failed to apply within three years from the date of the death of his father. Taking note of the said reason, the petitioner again filed another application. Finally, the impugned order came to be passed repeating the same reason that the petitioner has failed to submit his application within three years.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made two fold submissions.

Firstly, as per the proceedings of B.P.No.46, dated 13.10.1995, a person, seeking compassionate appointment, should submit an application within three years from the date of the death of breadwinner. The petitioner, who is the son of Late R.Chellian, has rightly submitted his application on 17.03.1999 through his mother. Therefore, it is not open to the respondent to reject the petitioner’s application and the said rejection is running contrary to their own proceedings dated 13.10.1995.

Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court an order passed by this Court in W.P.No.26361 of 2010, dated 26.11.2010, wherein this Court, after considering the various proceedings as well as various judgments, held that if a person moves an application within three years from the date of death of his father or mother, the said application cannot be rejected and on that basis, further direction was given to issue compassionate appointment order without reference to the objection raised in the impugned order after verifying the financial status of the petitioner and his family. By heavily relying on the ratio laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, he prayed for allowing the present writ petition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the proceedings in B.P.No.46, dated 13.10.1995, upon which the petitioner is building up his case, is no more available to the petitioner, for the reason that the said proceedings came to be cancelled by another proceedings dated 06.04.2002.

But, the learned counsel for the petitioner immediately intervened and said that the said proceedings dated 06.04.2002 has been set aside by this Court in W.A.No.1652 of 2006, dated 30.03.2009. Further, it was mentioned that the said order passed in W.A.No.1652 of 2006, has been taken up by way SLP before the Supreme Court, but the SLP also came to be dismissed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2039 of 2006. In fact, the dismissal of the civil appeal No.2039 of 2006 has been extracted in the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.26361 of 2010. Therefore, the only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent that the proceedings dated 13.10.1995 giving three years limitation for filing application seeking compassionate appointment came to be cancelled by the subsequent proceedings dated 06.04.2002, is no more available to the respondent. Therefore, the ultimiate net result would be the respondent is bound by their own proceedings. As per the said proceedings dated 13.10.1995, any person, who is seeking compassionate appointment, has to make a written request seeking compassionate appointment within three years from the date of the death of the breadwinner.

5. In the present case, the petitioner’s father Late R.Chelliah died on 01.04.1996. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner’s mother made an application seeking compassionate appointment on 12.08.1998, but the respondent rejected the said request on the ground that the petitioner’s mother was not having adequate qualification, since she had studied only up to 6th standard, but the minimum qualification required at that time was 8th standard. Further, after the rejection of the petitioner’s mother representation, once again, well within the three years time from the date of the death of the petitioner’s father, another application was also moved on 17.03.1999, seeking compassionate appointment to the petitioner herein. Since the subsequent application made by the petitioner’s mother on 17.03.1999 comes well within the three years limitation, the respondents are bound to consider the said application in terms of their own proceedings in B.P.No.46, dated 13.10.1995. Therefore, the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to issue compassionate appointment order to the petitioner, but subject to the verification of the certificates and financial status of the petitioner and his family members, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. In result, the present writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent. No Costs. M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed.

rkm

To

1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.

2.The Chief Engineer, Personnel,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.

3.The Superintending Engineer,
Dharmapuri Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Dharmapuri 5

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information