{"id":176487,"date":"2009-11-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-elavarasan-vs-the-chief-engineer-on-13-november-2009"},"modified":"2015-08-28T05:45:52","modified_gmt":"2015-08-28T00:15:52","slug":"n-elavarasan-vs-the-chief-engineer-on-13-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-elavarasan-vs-the-chief-engineer-on-13-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"N.Elavarasan vs The Chief Engineer on 13 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
N.Elavarasan vs The Chief Engineer on 13 November, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 13\/11\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA\n\nW.P(MD)No.3909 of 2009\n\nN.Elavarasan\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\t\nVs.\n\n1.The Chief Engineer,\n  Tamilnadu Electricity Board,\n  800, Anna Salai,\n  Chennai 600 002.\n\n2.The Superintending Engineer,\n  Trichy Electricity Distribution\n  Circle (North), Perambalur.\n\n3.Assistant Executive Engineer\n  Operation & Maintenance\n  (South),  Thuraiyur,\n  Tiruchirapalli District. \t\t\t.. Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\npraying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining\nto the order passed by the second respondent in Letter No.0843-\n1\/ni.pi.1\/u.4\/Ko.va.ve\/2007 dated 20.06.2007 and quash the same and consequently\ndirect the respondents to provide suitable employment opportunity to the\npetitioner on compassionate ground under the jurisdiction of third respondent.\n\n!For petitioner  ...   Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathy\n^For respondents ...   Mr.V.Kasinathan\n\n* * * * *\n\t\t\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\t  The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the
\nrelief of quashing the order of the second respondent dated 20.06.2007 in Letter
\nNo.0843-1\/ni.pi.1\/u.4\/ko.va.ve\/2007 and consequently directing the respondents
\nto provide suitable employment opportunity to the petitioner on compassionate
\nground under the jurisdiction of the third respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are
\nas follows;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(a) The father of the petitioner was working as a Watchman in Tamil
\nNadu Electricity Board under the third respondent at Thuraiyur, Tiruchirapalli
\nDistrict and he died on 16.06.1997, while he was in service. The petitioner and
\nher mother alone are the legal heirs of the deceased, father of the petitioner.
\nAt the time of death of his father, the petitioner was a minor and his mother
\nwas not having any source of income to maintain him.  Therefore, the mother of
\nthe petitioner submitted an application along with the representation to the
\nthird respondent on 18.11.1997 seeking to provide any suitable appointment on
\ncompassionate ground. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner received a letter
\nfrom the second respondent dated 13.03.1998  which was purported to be sent to
\nthe first respondent and in the said communication, it is stated that there are
\ncertain defects in the application of the mother of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(b) Again another letter received by the mother of the petitioner
\nfrom the second respondent dated 14.10.2003 requesting the applicant to furnish
\nthe Death Certificate of her husband, Legal Heir Certificate and Educational
\nCertificate.  The mother of the petitioner sent the required certificates to the
\nsecond respondent through the third respondent and again another letter received
\nby her dated 27.03.2004 from the second respondent requesting to rectify some
\nmistakes in the application form and as such mistakes were rectified.
\nThereafter, as directed by the second respondent, the third respondent conducted
\nan enquiry  and came to the conclusion that the petitioner’s mother attained the
\nage of 52 years and she was not eligible to get appointment on the compassionate
\nground as per the notification of the Board in B.P.Ms.(FB) No.46 Adm. Branch
\ndated 13.10.1995.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(c) Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner sent a representation
\nto the second respondent dated 27.07.2004 requesting for employment opportunity
\nto the petitioner on compassionate ground as she was not eligible as per the
\nenquiry conducted by the third respondent.   The mother of the petitioner
\nreceived two letters dated 19.07.2004 and 16.08.2004 stating that the employment
\nopportunity cannot be extended to the petitioner as the petitioner was minor at
\nthat point of time. Therefore, after attaining majority, the petitioner sent a
\nrepresentation to the first and second respondents on 19.07.2006 along with the
\nletter of consent given by his mother seeking for the relief of appointment on
\ncompassionate ground. The said representation was received by the first
\nrespondent on 24.07.2006 and the second respondent on 23.07.2006.  But  no
\ncommunication till 20.03.2007.  Thereafter, another representation was sent to
\nthe first and second respondents on 20.03.2007.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(d)The petitioner passed S.S.L.C. examination and also joined in
\nDiploma course in Electrical and Electronic Engineering and he was not able to
\ncomplete the course, due to family condition.  Having failed in his efforts, the
\npetitioner ultimately filed a writ petition in W.P.No.3887 of 2007 seeking
\ndirection to the respondents to provide an employment opportunity on
\ncompassionate ground.  This Court passed an order directing the respondent to
\nconsider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.03.2007 and in pursuance
\nof the said order, the second respondent has passed the impugned order dated
\n20.06.2007, rejecting the request made by the petitioner for the appointment on
\ncompassionate ground.  Being aggrieved against the said order, the present writ
\npetition is filed before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
\napplication preferred by the petitioner is well within the time of limitation of
\nthree years i.e., from the date of the petitioner attaining the age of majority.
\nIt is submitted that the petitioner attained the age of majority on 14.07.2006
\nand he preferred an application within a week i.e. on 19.07.2006.  It is
\ncontended that even prior to the date of attainment of majority, the mother of
\nthe petitioner made a representation to the second respondent on 27.07.2004
\nrequesting to provide employment opportunity to the petitioner herein, as mother
\nof the petitioner has become ineligible due to her overage.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t4.The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the
\nsecond respondent passed the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the
\npetitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not attained the age of
\nmajority i.e., not completed the age of 18 years, within a period of three years
\nfrom the date of death of his father.  The learned counsel would further submit
\nthat such reason is unsustainable, in view of the fact that the limitation of
\nperiod of three years has to be calculated only from the date of attaining
\nmajority and admittedly, the petitioner preferred the application for seeking
\nthe relief of compassionate appointment within a period of three years from the
\ndate of his majority.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t5.The leaned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention
\nwould place reliance on the decisions of this Court in Meer Ismail Ali.T. Vs.
\nThe Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai reported in 2004 (3) CTC 120;   Selvi
\nR.Anbarasi Vs. Chief Engineer (Personnel), T.N.E.B., Chennai reported in (2006)
\n2 M.L.J. 2006;   A.Neppolian Vs. The Chief Engineer (Personnel), T.N.E.B., and
\nanother; reported in MANU\/TN\/9306\/2006; and The Chief Engineer\/Personnel,
\nT.N.E.B., and another Vs. Suder reported in MANU\/TN\/063\/2009.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t6.Per contra, Mr.V.Kasinathan, learned counsel appearing for the
\nrespondents contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
\norder passed by the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner for
\ncompassionate appointment on the ground that the petitioner has not attained the
\nage of majority within a period of three years from the date of death of his
\nfather.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t7.I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and
\nperused the materials available on record.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t8.The fact remains that the father of the petitioner was working as
\na Watchman in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board under the third respondent and he
\ndied during his service on 16.06.1997 and at that time, admittedly, the
\npetitioner was a minor.  The petitioner and his mother alone are the legal heirs
\nof the father of the petitioner. It is seen that the mother of the petitioner
\nalso preferred an application seeking for the relief of compassionate
\nappointment, within the stipulated time i.e., three years from the date of death
\nof the father of the petitioner. But, unfortunately the mother of the petitioner
\nwas driven from pillar to post by asking repeated clarification and production
\nof certificates, and all her efforts ultimately proved futile as the second
\nrespondent herein rejected her claim on the ground of her overage as she has
\nattained the age of 52 years.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t9.It is pertinent to note that thereafter, the mother of the
\npetitioner also made a representation to the second respondent for appointment
\non compassionate ground to her son viz., the petitioner herein, as early as on
\n27.07.2004 and the said request was also not accepted.  Thereafter, the
\npetitioner attained majority on 14.07.2006 and immediately, within a week, i.e.,
\non 19.07.2006 the petitioner preferred a representation and the same is well
\nwithin the period of three years from the date of his attaining majority seeking
\nfor the relief of compassionate appointment. But the said request was rejected
\nby the second respondent on the sole ground that he has not attained the age of
\nmajority within three years from the date of death of his father.  It is seen
\nthat in a catena of decisions, this Court has categorically held that the period
\nof limitation has to be reckoned only from the date of attaining majority and
\nnot from the date of the death of the deceased, who was in service in T.N.E.B.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t10.This Court in T.Meer Ismail Ali.T. Vs. The Tamil Nadu Electricity
\nBoard, Chennai reported in 2004 (3) CTC 120 was held as follows;
\n\t“I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner’s case deserves
\nconsideration inasmuch as he had diligently made a claim once in the year 1997
\nand thereafter, immediately after attaining the age of 18, in the year 2000 and
\nin such circumstances, rejection of his application on the ground that it was
\nnot made within three years was not justified.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t11.This Court in another decision in Selvi R.Anbarasi Vs. Chief
\nEngineer (Personnel), T.N.E.B., Chennai reported in (2006) 2 M.L.J., 2006  held
\nas follows;\n<\/p>\n
\t“The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a similar issue,
\nrejecting the compassionate ground appointment on the ground that the
\napplication was submitted beyond three years and the same was rejected earlier
\non the ground that the petitioner therein has not completed 18 years of age, was
\nconsidered by this Court in W.P.No.1584 of 2001 and this Court held that the
\napplications having been made within a period of three years and the same having
\nnot been considered on the ground that the petitioner therein was not 18 years
\nof age at that time, the subsequent application cannot be rejected on the ground
\nthat the application was submitted within three years.  The learned Judge
\ndirected the respondents not to treat the second application as an application
\nfor compassionate appointment, but it is to be treated as continuation of the
\napplication originally submitted.  The said judgment is reported in T.Meer
\nIsmail Ali  Vs.  Tamil Nadu Electricity Board through its Chairman, and others,
\n(2004) 3 C.T.C. 120.  This Court, ultimately, directed the respondents to give
\ncompassionate appointment to the petitioner therein.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t12.This Court in yet another decision in A.Neppolian Vs. The Chief
\nEngineer (Personnel), T.N.E.B. Chennai and another reported in MANU\/TN\/9306\/2006
\nheld as hereunder;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“(c) In W.P.No.8154 of 2002 (A.Govindan v. The Chief Engineer
\n(Personnel), TNEB, Chennai and Anr.) the Hon’ble Mr.Justice N.V.Balasubramaniam,
\nby order dated 9.4.2002 allowed similar writ petition with a direction to treat
\nthe application submitted as within the time.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(d) The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran by order dated 23.9.2003
\nin W.P.No.19673 of 2003 (J.Jayakaran v. The Superintending Engineer, Theni
\nElectricity Distribution Circle, Theni) allowed the writ petition and directed
\nthe TNEB to pass orders granting compassionate appointment.  Paragraph 5 in the
\nsaid order reads as under;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“It is true that when an application was made for employment of the
\npetitioner, i.e., on 23.05.2002, the petitioner was only a minor, but not
\nqualified.  But he had attained majority on 02.06.2003 and therefore, the
\nrespondent Board, having kept the application of the petitioner for employment
\non compassionate ground under consideration, ought to have considered the case
\nof the petitioner for suitable employment without rejecting the same on
\ntechnical reason, by the impugned order dated 18.06.2003.  Since B.P.No.146
\ndated 13.10.1995 prescribes only a maximum period of three years for
\nconsideration of the application for appointment on compassionate ground, the
\nrespondent shall consider the request of the petitioner for employment on
\ncompassionate ground and pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks from the
\ndate of receipt of copy of this order, if the petitioner is otherwise qualified
\nfor suitable post.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t13.Lastly a Division Bench of this Court in The Chief
\nEngineer\/Personnel, T.N.E.B., & another Vs. S.Suder  reported in
\nMANU\/TN\/0635\/2009 was held as follows;\n<\/p>\n
\t“4.In the judgment reported in 2001 Writ L.R. 601 in the case of
\n“Ramadoss. D. v. The Chief Engineer, T.N.E.B”, this Court (D.Murugesan, J)
\ndirected the consideration of the application made within a period of three
\nyears after attaining the majority by placing reliance on the very same Circular
\nin B.P.No.46, dated 13.10.1995.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.Subsequently, in the judgment reported in 2002(4) L.L.N. 1132,
\n(D.Murugesan, J.), in the case of “P.Ravi  v. Chief Engineer (P), T.N.E.B.<\/a>“,
\nalso, the very same Circular was relied upon and the application for appointment
\non compassionate grounds was directed to be considered.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.Justice P.D.Dinakaran, has also taken the very same view by following
\nthe very same Circular dated 13.10.1995, in W.P.No.19673 of 2003, in the order
\ndated 23.09.2003, in the case of ‘J.Jayakaran v. The Superintending Engineer,
\nTheni Electricity Distribution Circle, Theni” and the application for
\nappointment on compassionate grounds was directed to be considered.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.Justice K.Govindarajan has also taken the same view in Writ Petition
\nNo.13099 of 2003, order dated 30.10.2003, in the case of “G.Muthamilselvan v.
\nThe Chief Engineer (Personnel) and Anr.”\n<\/p>\n
\t8.Justice F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla has also taken the same view in the
\ndecision reported in Manu\/TN\/0337\/2004, 2004(3) CTC 120, (2004) 4 MLJ 238 in the
\ncase of “Meer Ismail Ali. T. v. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board<\/a>“.  We are told
\nthat the order in the said case of “Meer Ismail Ali” was confirmed in the Writ
\nAppeal by the Division Bench in W.A.No.4008 of 2004, by judgment dated 1.12.2004
\nand as against the said judgment dated 1.12.2004, the Special Leave Petition in
\nCivil Appeal No.6387 of 2005, was also dismissed by the Supreme Court, by
\njudgment dated 4.4.2005.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.Similar question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of
\nthis Court in Writ Appeal No.3050 of 2003 in the case of “Indiraniammal v. The
\nChief Engineer (Personnel) and Anr.” and by judgment dated 08.03.2005, the
\nDivision Bench set aside the impugned order therein in rejecting the request of
\nthe petitioner therein for appointment on compassionate grounds and directed the
\nBoard to consider the application.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.There cannot be a controversy in view of the settled position of law
\nthat appointment on compassionate ground is not automatic, as it would amount to
\nback door entry to a post, by-passing the Rules to be followed for such
\nappointment. Nevertheless, to tide over the financial constraints of a family
\ndue to sudden demise of the breadwinner of a family, the State Government or its
\nundertaking or for that purpose, any employer, would be entitled to frame
\nScheme\/Rules for such appointment by prescribing the conditions as well as the
\neligibility.  Hence, the request for appointment on compassionate grounds would
\nbe considered with reference to the Scheme\/Rules or any of the provisions framed
\nfor the said purpose, either by the Government or by the employers, as the case
\nmay be.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.In the case on hand, the father of the respondent while he was working
\nas Wireman in the Office of the Assistant Engineer, TNEB, Kazhuvanthilai,
\nKanyakumari District, died due to illness on 07.03.1998.  At the time of the
\ndeath of his father, the respondent was 15 years old and for the purpose of
\nmaking application for appointment on compassionate grounds, he should have
\ncompleted 18 years.  Hence, he could not make any application for appointment on
\ncompassionate grounds.  By placing reliance on B.P.No.46, dated 13.10.1995, he
\nmade application on 3.9.2002, within a period of four days from the date of his
\nattaining majority, i.e., 18 years.  That application was rejected on the ground
\nthat the same cannot be entertained as per the Circular in vogue on the date of
\nthe application.  Presumably, the order of rejection was passed on the basis of
\nthe Memo, dated 6.4.2002.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.As we have already referred that the application for compassionate
\nappointment is maintainable by a person within a period of three years after
\nhe\/she attains the majority, irrespective of the fact that the breadwinner died
\nwhile such person was a minor in terms of the proceedings of the Board in
\nB.P.No.46 dated 13.10.1995.  This position is not in dispute.  We may also once
\nagain refer to the fact that following the very same Board proceedings in
\nB.P.No.46, dated 13.10.1995, consistently, this Court had taken the view that
\nthe application seeking for appointment on compassionate grounds, has to be
\nconsidered in the event when such applications are made within a period of three
\nyears after he\/she attains the majority.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t14.\tIn view of the above said principle laid down by this Court
\nconsistently in the above said decisions, this Court has no hesitation to quash
\nthe impugned order as the petitioner preferred the application seeking for the
\nrelief of compassionate appointment within a period of three yeas from the date
\nof his attaining majority.  Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the
\nimpugned order passed by the second respondent in Letter No.0843-
\n1\/ni.pi.1\/u.4\/ko.va.ve\/2007 dated 20.06.2007 is hereby quashed and the second
\nrespondent is directed to provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate
\nground in respect of any suitable job within a period of eight weeks from the
\ndate of receipt of a copy of this order.\tNo costs.\n<\/p>\n
gcg<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Chief Engineer,
\n  Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
\n  800, Anna Salai,
\n  Chennai 600 002.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Superintending Engineer,
\n  Trichy Electricity Distribution
\n  Circle (North), Perambalur.\n<\/p>\n
3.Assistant Executive Engineer
\n  Operation & Maintenance
\n  (South),  Thuraiyur,
\n  Tiruchirapalli District.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Addl. Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High
\n  Court, Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court N.Elavarasan vs The Chief Engineer on 13 November, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13\/11\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA W.P(MD)No.3909 of 2009 N.Elavarasan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chief Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Trichy Electricity Distribution Circle (North), Perambalur. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-176487","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nN.Elavarasan vs The Chief Engineer on 13 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-elavarasan-vs-the-chief-engineer-on-13-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N.Elavarasan vs The Chief Engineer on 13 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-elavarasan-vs-the-chief-engineer-on-13-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-28T00:15:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-elavarasan-vs-the-chief-engineer-on-13-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-elavarasan-vs-the-chief-engineer-on-13-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N.Elavarasan vs The Chief Engineer on 13 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-28T00:15:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-elavarasan-vs-the-chief-engineer-on-13-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2813,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-elavarasan-vs-the-chief-engineer-on-13-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-elavarasan-vs-the-chief-engineer-on-13-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-elavarasan-vs-the-chief-engineer-on-13-november-2009\",\"name\":\"N.Elavarasan vs The Chief Engineer on 13 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-28T00:15:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-elavarasan-vs-the-chief-engineer-on-13-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-elavarasan-vs-the-chief-engineer-on-13-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-elavarasan-vs-the-chief-engineer-on-13-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N.Elavarasan vs The Chief Engineer on 13 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"N.Elavarasan vs The Chief Engineer on 13 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-elavarasan-vs-the-chief-engineer-on-13-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N.Elavarasan vs The Chief Engineer on 13 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-elavarasan-vs-the-chief-engineer-on-13-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-28T00:15:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-elavarasan-vs-the-chief-engineer-on-13-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-elavarasan-vs-the-chief-engineer-on-13-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N.Elavarasan vs The Chief Engineer on 13 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-28T00:15:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-elavarasan-vs-the-chief-engineer-on-13-november-2009"},"wordCount":2813,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-elavarasan-vs-the-chief-engineer-on-13-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-elavarasan-vs-the-chief-engineer-on-13-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-elavarasan-vs-the-chief-engineer-on-13-november-2009","name":"N.Elavarasan vs The Chief Engineer on 13 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-28T00:15:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-elavarasan-vs-the-chief-engineer-on-13-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-elavarasan-vs-the-chief-engineer-on-13-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-elavarasan-vs-the-chief-engineer-on-13-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N.Elavarasan vs The Chief Engineer on 13 November, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176487","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=176487"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176487\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176487"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176487"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176487"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}