IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18/06/2002
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ
W.P.No.21160 of 2002
M.Ramachandran .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
800, Anna Salai, Chennai.
2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel),
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
800, Anna Salai, Chennai.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Salem Electricity Distribution
Circle, Salem Dist. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
For respondent : Mr.V.Radhakrishnan
for TNEB.
:O R D E R
Mr.V.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel, takes notice for the respondents.
2. Petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records of the third respondent relating to the impugned order
dated 23.10.2000 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to
appoint the petitioner in any suitable post on compassionate basis.
3. Heard the learned counsel for both and perused the materials
placed on record.
4. From the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and
having regard to the materials placed on record, particularly the order
impugned dated 23.10.2000, it is assessed that the petitioner’s mother, viz.,
Dhanam, on the death of her husband, viz., L.Manickam on 14 .1.1992, who died
in harness, has sought for a suitable job for her son, the petitioner, at the
earliest, as it is revealed from the application dated 20.7.197, that is,
within the period of three years, which is alleged to have been prescribed for
making such an application seeking job on compassionate grounds.
5. The filing of the said application within the time as
aforementioned comes to be confirmed by the communication of the third
respondent dated 26.07.1994 wherein the third respondent has sought for
certain other requirements to be complied with addressing the same to the
petitioner’s mother Smt.Dhanam, W/o. Late L.Manickam.
6. While such being the facts, by the order impugned, it is revealed
that since the application had not been filed in time i.e. within three years
as has been prescribed by law, taking into consideration the later reminders
sent by the petitioner, the request of the petitioner seeking job on
compassionate grounds has been rejected on ground of maintainability on
account of delay.
7. The authority himself in the impugned order admits that on
20.7.1994, the application had been sent and it had been returned for due
compliance of certain requirements, but fails to take into account the date of
this application for computing the period of three years and in fact, that is
the application that has been sent at the earliest point of time and the
computation of time should be reckoned with only from that date, viz.,
20.7.1994, in which event the application is very well in time. Therefore,
the conclusion arrived at by the third respondent in rejecting the application
of the petitioner on ground that it is time barred is factually wrong and
hence the following orders.
gs.
V.KANAGARAJ, J.
In result,
(i) the above writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed quashing
the order of the third respondent dated 23.10.2000; and
(ii) the third respondent is hereby directed to consider and pass
orders on the representation of the petitioner seeking for a suitable job on
compassionate grounds on account of the death of his father on 14.1.1992,
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
WPMP No.29250 of 2002 is closed. No costs.
18.06.2002
gs.
To
1. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
800, Anna Salai, Chennai.
2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel),
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,800, Anna Salai, Chennai.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Salem Electricity Distribution Circle, Salem Dist.
W.P.No.21160 of 2002
