1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.SUGUNA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY W.A.(MD).No.508 of 2011 R.Marthandan : Appellant Vs. 1.The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai 2. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, K.Pudur, Backside of Race Course Ground, Madurai 7. : Respondents / Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 01.10.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.13932 of 2010 on the file of this Court. Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in f/vz;/009334/59/ $p8/ $p82/2009-4 dagted 01.04.2009 and quash the same as devoid of merits and directing the respondents to provide an employment to the petitioner based on his eligibility on the compassionate ground within the period stipulated by this Honourable Court. For Appellant : Mr.A.Hajamohideen For Respondents : Mr.V.Panneerselvam JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY A.ARUMUGHASWAMY, J] Challenge in this Writ Appeal is to the order dated 01.10.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.13932 of 2010. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Appeal are as follows:- (i). The father of the appellant, by name Mr.M.Rengan, who worked as a Helper under the respondents Electricity Board, died due to heard attack on 18.10.1991. At the time of his death, the appellant was hardly ten years old and his brother was seven years old. Therefore, the mother of the appellant submitted an application on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 04.12.1991 before the respondents requesting them to provide appointment on compassionate ground. The first respondent herein, by his proceedings dated 22.07.1992, rejected the claim of the mother of the appellant on the ground of want of vacancy. After attaining majority, the appellant made an application on 14.03.2007 to the second respondent seeking appointment on compassionate ground. However, by order dated 01.04.2009, the first respondent rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that the said application was made after three years of the death of the employee. Challenging the said order dated 01.04.2009, the appellant filed W.P.(MD).No.13932 of 2010 and for a direction to the respondents to provide appointment on compassionate ground based on his eligibility. The Writ Court, by order dated 01.10.2010, relying on a Judgment of the First Bench of this Court in E.Ramasamy vs. Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board reported in 2007 WLR 796, dismissed the said Writ Petition. As against the said order dated 01.10.2010, the appellant has come up with the present Writ Appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that immediately after the death of his father, the mother of the appellant submitted application on 04.12.1991 before the respondents and the same was rejected by the first respondent by his proceedings dated 22.07.1992 on the ground of want of vacancy. Thereafter, after attaining majority, the appellant made application on 14.03.2007 and the same was also rejected on the ground that the application was made after three years of the death of the employee. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is entitled for the relief sought for. 4. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that initially, the application made by the mother of the appellant was rejected on the ground that there was no vacancy available, and thereafter, after attaining majority, the appellant made an application and the same was also rejected by the first respondent, since the appellant made application after three years of the death of the employee. Based on the above, the learned counsel for the respondents seeks for dismissal of the Writ Appeal. 5. We have considered the above submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the records carefully. 6. It is the well settled law that appointment on compassionate ground is not a right and it is only a grace. The object of offering employment on compassionate ground is only to rescue the family from facing financial stress and strain. The relevant consideration is whether the appellant's family was in financial stress and strain at the time of death of the Government Servant. But, in this case, the family could run for about 16 years after the demise of the Government Servant and after attaining majority, the appellant made application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7. At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to refer to a Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in [E.Ramasamy v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board] reported in 2006 (4) M.L.J. 1080, wherein the Division Bench has held as follows:- “In Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and others [(2000) 7 SCC 192], the Supreme Court has expressly held that there cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the applicant becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief. An application made after the period stipulated under the scheme is not maintainable, and it is not permissible to hold that such application could be made after attaining majority. We are afraid, the Division Bench which rendered the judgment in Indiraniammal v. Chief Engineer (Personnel), the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No. 800, Anna Salai,Chennai – 2 and another (supra) has not followed the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and does not lay down correct law. The order of the learned single Judge in Meer Ismail Ali. T v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (supra) is rather cryptic where the learned single Judge has observed that without going into the merits of the controversy the petitioner be given employment on humanitarian consideration. None of the judgments of the Supreme Court cited above are considered.” 8. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of J & K v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, reported in 2006(4) MLJ 604 has held as follows:- 17. In the case on hand, the father of the applicant died in March, 1987. The application was made by the applicant after four and half years in September, 1991 which was rejected in March, 1996. The Writ Petition was filed in June, 1999 which was dismissed by the learned single Judge in July, 2000. When the Division Bench decided the matter, more than fifteen years had passed from the date of death of the father of the applicant. The said fact was indeed a relevant and material fact which went to show that the family survived in spite of death of the employee. Moreover, in our opinion, the learned single Judge was also right in holding that though the order was passed in 1996, it was not challenged by the applicant immediately. He took chance of challenging the order in 1999 when there was inter-departmental communication in 1999. The Division Bench, in our view, hence ought not to have allowed the appeal". https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 9. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in M.Raju vs. Union of India reported in 2009 (4) MLJ 237, has held that application made seeking appointment on compassionate ground after lapse of a reasonable time cannot be considered. 10. In the light of the above binding precedents of the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court, the request of the appellant cannot be considered. The Writ Court has rightly relied on the Judgment of the First Bench of this Court in E.Ramasamy vs. Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board reported in 2007 WLR 796 and dismissed the said Writ Petition which, in our considered opinion, needs no interference. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai 2. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, K.Pudur, Backside of Race Course Ground, Madurai 7. +1cc to Mr.A.Hajamohideen, Advocate, Sr.No.19817 JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).No.508 of 2011 23.06.2011 NB SMA/05.7.2011/4C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/