IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07 / 06 / 2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NO.26345 OF 2010 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2010 C.Siddhan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chief Engineer (Personnel) Board Office / Adm. Branch Tamil Nadu Electricity Board 800, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 2.Additional Chief Engineer Gobi Electricity District Circle Gobichettipalayam. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned letter No.036552/138/G10/G102/2006-1 dated 24.03.2006 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy For Respondents : Mr.B.Sekar O R D E R The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order dated 24.03.2006 passed by the first respondent Chief Engineer (Personnel) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to consider his case for compassionate appointment. 2.When the matter came up on 24.11.2010, this Court directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to serve notice on the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Accordingly, Mr.B.Sekar, learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondent Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The case of the petitioner is that her father A.Chikkumadhavan was working as a Wireman in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at Gobichettipalayam. Unfortunately, he passed away on 14.01.1997 leaving behind the petitioner's mother, two daughters and one elder son including the petitioner, as his legal representatives. At the time of death, the petitioner was 28 years old and also got married. The petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment. The petitioner was informed by the second respondent vide a memo dated 17.12.1998 that he had to submit necessary application for being considered him for such employment. At the time of application, the petitioner did not even pass 8th standard and had discontinued the school. Subsequently, he passed 8th standard examination through private studies during December 2004, nearly after a period of seven years after the death of his father. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a representation dated 03.05.2005 to the Hon'ble Chief Minister's Grievance Cell renewing his request for compassionate appointment. On the said representation being forwarded to the first respondent, the petitioner was informed by a memo dated 07.10.2005 that though he had submitted an application for employment assistance within a time period and was having a minimum age for entry into service, he did not have any educational qualification for entry into the Board's service and hence, his request was rejected. The petitioner, thereafter sent a representation dated 08.02.2006 to the Hon'ble Chief Minister's Grievance Cell and on that being forwarded to the Board, the first respondent reiterated the same. It is therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4.The contention of the petitioner is that his subsequent acquisition of 8th standard should be considered and the denial by the respondents was illegal. In this context, a reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt reported in 1997 (6) SCC 574. Reliance was placed upon the following passage in paras 6 and 7, which reads as follows:- "6. Looking to the clear terms of the advertisement which we have referred to above, the respondent was not eligible for consideration. It is submitted by the respondent before us that since he has been continued and has now been confirmed we should not disturb his appointment. He has requested that his case should be considered sympathetically. The fact, however, remains that the appellants have taken the correct stand right from the beginning. The respondent’s application was not considered and he was not called for an interview. It was on account of interim orders which were obtained by the respondent that he was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ given appointment and continued. He was aware that his appointment was subject to the outcome of his petition. One cannot, therefore, take too sympathetic a view of the situation in which the respondent finds himself. A cut-off date by which all the requirements relating to qualifications have to be met, cannot be ignored in an individual case. There may be other persons who would have applied had they known that the date of acquiring qualifications was flexible. They may not have applied because they did not possess the requisite qualification on the prescribed date. Relaxing the prescribed requirements in the case of one individual may, therefore, cause injustice to others. 7. In the premises, the respondent was not eligible for consideration." 5.It is not clear as to how the said judgment is of any assistance to the petitioner. The scheme for compassionate appointment is an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and it has to be construed in a strict manner. In this context, the Supreme Court vide its judgment in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2011 (4) SCC 209 had observed in paragraphs 15 and 20 as follows: "15.Now, it is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the employee's family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our Constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible. Nevertheless, the concept of compassionate appointment has been recognized as an exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which partakes the character of the service rules. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the purpose it seeks to achieve. 20.Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i)Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii)An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii)An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the bread winner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased / incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be. (iv)Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/incapacitated employee, viz. parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts. 6.Further, very recently the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2206 of 2006, dated 05.04.2011 in Local Administration Department and another Vs. M.Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu has held in paragraphs 7 to 9 as follows: "7.We think that the explanation given for the wife of the deceased not asking for employment is an after-thought and completely unacceptable. A person suffering from anaemia and low blood pressure will always greatly prefer the security and certainty of a regular job in the municipality which would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be far more lucrative and far less taxing than doing menial work from house to house in an unorganised way. But, apart from this, there is a far more basic flaw in the view taken by the Division Bench in that it is completely divorced from the object and purpose of the scheme of compassionate appointments. It has been said a number of times earlier but it needs to be recalled here that under the scheme of compassionate appointment, in case of an employee dying in harness one of his eligible dependents is given a job with the sole objective to provide immediate succour to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the bread winner. An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind. 8.Ideally, the appointment on compassionate basis should be made without any loss of time but having regard to the delays in the administrative process and several other relevant factors such as the number of already pending claims under the scheme and availability of vacancies etc. normally the appointment may come after several months or even after two to three years. It is not our intent, nor it is possible to lay down a rigid time limit within which appointment on compassionate grounds must be made but what needs to be emphasised is that such an appointment must have some bearing on the object of the scheme. 9. In this case the respondent was only 11 years old at the time of the death of his father. The first application for his appointment was made on July 2, 1993, even while he was a minor. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Another application was made on his behalf on attaining majority after 7 years and 6 months of his father's death. In such a case, the appointment cannot be said to sub-serve the basic object and purpose of the scheme. It would rather appear that on attaining majority he staked his claim on the basis that his father was an employee of the Municipality and he had died while in service. In the facts of the case, the municipal authorities were clearly right in holding that with whatever difficulty, the family of Meenakshisundaram had been able to tide over the first impact of his death. That being the position, the case of the respondent did not come under the scheme of compassionate appointments." 7.In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. TK To 1.The Chief Engineer (Personnel) Board Office / Adm. Branch Tamil Nadu Electricity Board 800, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 2.Additional Chief Engineer Gobi Electricity District Circle Gobichettipalayam. 1 cc to Mr.R. Marudhachalamurthy, Advocate, Sr. 32501 1 cc to Mr.B. Sekar, Advocate, Sr. 32122 WRIT PETITION NO.26345 OF 2010 BK (CO) kk 20/6 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/