IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.04.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NO.5053 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 S.Shankara Pandian .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800,Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Kovai Electricity Sub Station Block/South, Coimbatore-641 012. .. Respondents This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in letter No.004237/81/NiBi-2/Ko.Va.Ve/2010, dated 02.06.2010 on the file of the second respondent and to quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and unjustifiable and to direct the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's representation for compassionate appointment, dated 16.10.2009 in accordance with the orders in B.P.(FB)No.3, Administrative Branch, dated 09.01.2007. For Petitioner : .Mr.A.Thiagarajan, SC for Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.B.Sekar, Standing Counsel for TNEB ORDER The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging an order, dated 2.6.2010, wherein and by which the petitioner's request for employment assistance on compassionate ground was declined by the second respondent. 2.It is seen from the records that the petitioner was the son https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of late A.Shanmugam, who was employed as a Wiremen. He died on 16.11.1991. After his death, the petitioner's mother Vasanthi was supporting the family by working as a construction worker. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner was only six years old and was not qualified for any post. The petitioner's mother's request for compassionate appointment was rejected as she was not having any educational qualification as early as on 18.11.1992. The petitioner thereafter becoming major and also getting some educational qualification, had made a representation, which was rejected by the respondent. 3.Though Mr.A.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner attempted to assail the order on the basis of some unreported judgments, the binding precedents of the Supreme Court in this regard cannot be whisked away. The Supreme Court in such a context has held that the compassionate appointment has to be construed in a strict manner as it is an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 4.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 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: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (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. 5.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 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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. 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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." 6.In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. vvk To 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800,Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Kovai Electricity Sub Station Block/South, Coimbatore-641 012. 1 cc to Mr.S. Ramesh kumar, Advocate, Sr. 26649 1 cc to MR.B. Sekar Standing counsel TNEB,. sr. 28251 W.P.NO.5053 of 2011 MS (CO) kk 13/5 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/