IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.3.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.10436 of 2006 1 P. PAVENTHAN [ PETITIONER ] Vs 1 THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN VIII FLOOR K.R.R.MALIGAI ANNASALAI CHENNAI-2. 2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER VILLUPURAM ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE VILLUPURAM-2. [ RESPONDENTS ] Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent herein culminating in order No. K.No.010560/Nir.3/Asst.4/K.V.V./2004, dated 23.6.2004 and quash the same and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in suitable post in the 1st respondent board on compassionate ground. For petitioner : Mr.M.R.Sivakumar For respondents : Mr.M.Vaidyanathan O R D E R It has been stated that the petitioner’s father was an employee of the first respondent Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, since 24.10.1988. He was a Junior Assistant employed in the office of the Executive Engineer, Gingee. He had died in harness, on 24.10.1988. At the time of the death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner was three years old and his younger brother was one year old. The petitioner’s mother, who became a widow at a very young age, had applied to the first respondent, for a suitable employment, on compassionate ground, in the year, 1989. Her request had been rejected by the respondents, as no suitable job was available, due to lack of necessary qualifications. 2. It has also been stated that the petitioner, after attaining the age of majority, during the year, 2003, had applied to the first respondent for employment, on compassionate ground. Even at that time, the petitioner’s family was in indigent circumstances. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner had passed S.S.L.C. examinations. However, the request of the petitioner had been turned down by the first respondent on the ground that the application of the petitioner was time barred. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that, as per the guidelines of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, in B.P.Ms.(FB) No.46, (Adm.Branch), dated 13.10.1995, the following guidelines had been prescribed for seeking relief under compassionate grounds. "a) The application for compassionate grounds should be made within 3 years of the death of an employee. b) The maximum age limit be raised to 50 years in the case of widows of the deceased employees of the Board. c) In the case of already expired staff while in service the dependent should apply for employment assistance within 3 years from the date of issue of the above said order." 4. It has also been stated that the application of an individual can be considered only if the applicant possesses the minimum qualification of 8th standard and on his completion of 18 years of age, as per the Board’s instructions. The employment of a person, under compassionate ground, is only an exception to the normal procedure, that is to be followed in the process of recruitment. It should be strictly in conformity with the relevant provisions and the guidelines applicable to such appointment. The petitioner’s father having died in the year, 1988, when the petitioner was a minor. However, the application cannot be made after a period of 3 years from the date of the death of the employee or three years from the date of the Board’s proceedings, dated 13.10.1995. In such circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 30.3.2009, made in W.A.No.1652 of 2006 (THE CHIEF ENGINEER/PERSONNEL, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, NO.800, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600 002 AND ANOTHER Vs.S.SUNDER) in support of his contentions. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: (i) UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA (1994) 4 SCC 138) (ii) SANJAY KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. (2000) 7 SCC 192) (iii) W.A.Nos.336 OF 2003, 997 OF 2006 AND 1006 OF 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (E.RAMASAMY Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 800, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI – 600 002) (iv) M.RAJU Vs. U.O.I. (2009) 4 MLJ 237 7. The following are some of the recent decisions relating to appointments on compassionate grounds. 7.1. In State Bank of India and another Vs. Somvir Singh (2007 (4) SCC 778), the Supreme Court had held that appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception carved out to the general rule that recruitment to public services is to be made in a transparent and accountable manner, providing opportunity to all eligible persons to compete and participate in the selection process. Such appointments are required to be made on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. Dependants of employees who had died in harness do not have any special or additional claim to public services other than the one conferred, if any, by the employer. The claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules, etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds. There is no right of whatsoever nature to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than the one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of a scheme or instructions, as the case may be. 7.2. In I.G.(Karmik) and others Vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi (2007(6) SCC 162), the Supreme Court had held that compassionate appointment must be in consonance with the Constitutional scheme of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7.3. In Union Bank of India and others Vs. M.T.Latheesh (2006(7) SCC 350), the Supreme Court had held that grant of employment on compassionate grounds in all cases, would shut the door for employment to the increasing number of unemployed youth. 7.4. In Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coal Field Ltd., and others (2007(8) SCC 549), the Supreme Court had recognised the fact that appointment on compassionate grounds are an exception to Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. 7.5. In State Bank of India and others Vs. Jaspal Kaur (2007(9) SCC 571), the Supreme Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ had held that a major criterion while appointing a person on compassionate grounds should be the financial condition of the family of the deceased person. The appointment under the scheme of compassionate appointment is at the discretion of the authority concerned. The discretion is to be exercised keeping in view the scheme and the object and the rationale behind it. However, it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 7.6. "In H.Anwar Basha Vs. The Registrar General, Madras High Court (2008 (3) CTC 785), a Division Bench of this Court had held that the object of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the sufferings of the bereaved family of the Government servant who had died in harness leaving his family in indigent circumstances. 8. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, it is seen that the petitioner’s father had died, on 24.10.1988, while in service. The petitioner, who was a minor at the time of the death of his father, had attained majority only, on 27.5.2003. The representation given by the petitioner’s mother, namely, P.Santhy on 2.9.1989, had been rejected, on 26.5.1990, since she did not possess the necessary qualification. On 6.2.2002, a representation had been given by the petitioner’s mother, seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner. The said request had been rejected by the respondents, by a letter, dated 20.3.2003. A subsequent representation made, on 19.8.2002, had also been rejected, on 29.8.2002. 9. It is also seen that at the time of the rejection of the said representation, the petitioner had not attained the age of majority. According to B.P.Ms.(FB) No.46, (Adm.Branch), dated 13.10.1995, certain guidelines had been prescribed for appointment on compassionate grounds. According to the said guidelines, the petitioner was not qualified for such appointment. Further, from the decisions cited supra, it is clear that the compassionate appointment can be made only for the purpose of helping the family in distress, due to the death of his breadwinner, to tide over the situation. There is no vested right for a person to demand such appointment, unless the said person is qualified at the relevant point of time, as per the prevailing guidelines or the relevant rules applicable to such appointments. Further, unless such appointments can be made within a reasonable time, in order to fulfill the purpose behind such https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appointment, it would be a travesty of justice. As such the writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar lan To 1 THE CHAIRMAN THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD VIII FLOOR K.R.R.MALIGAI ANNASALAI CHENNAI-2. 2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER VILLUPURAM ELECTRICITYM DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE VILLUPURAM-2. +1 C.C. to Mr.M.R.Sivakumar Advocate, Sr.No.18850 Writ Petition No.10436 of 2006 RSN- CO KV- 26/03/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/