R SAKTHIVEL Vs. CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's father Late C.Ramasamy employed as Foreman I Grade at Kachirapalayam. While he was in service, he died due to Rabies on 26.01.2003, leaving behind his two wives and five children. Since the petitioner's father was the only breadwinner of his family, the petitioner's mother was unable to maintain his family within the meagre pension, because even the terminal benefits arising out of his father's death were sanctioned only on 07.02.2006, after a lapse of 3 years from the date of death of his father. Further, the rest of 50% of the terminal benefits was settled to his father's second wife. However, the petitioner's mother, on receipt of the 50% of the terminal benefits, had spent the entire amount by remitting the same towards the loan amount borrowed for the purpose of his father's medical treatment. THErefore, after the death of his father, though the petitioner's family received 50% of the terminal benefits, virtually nothing remains in their hands and as a result, the petitioner's family is struggling even for daily bread and to meet the day to day expenses. THErefore, an agreement was reached between the first wife and second wife. As per the agreement, all the family members of the second wife have agreed to take 50% of the terminal benefits and agreed to give 50% rest of the 50% of terminal benefits to the petitioner's family members along with right of getting compassionate appointment.

(2.) ON that basis, when a representation was made to the fourth respondent on 02.12.2005 requesting to provide compassionate appointment to him, as he has also passed 10th standard, but, by proceedings dated 23.08.2006, the third respondent directed the fourth respondent to conduct field enquiry and in turn, the third respondent also informed the petitioner and his family members to participate in the said enquiry and accordingly, the family members of the petitioner took part in the enquiry. Finally, on the basis of no objection certificate given by the petitioner's brother, step mother, sisters, half brother and half sisters to the Assistant Executive Engineer for providing appointment to him on compassionate ground, the fourth respondent also submitted the field enquiry report to the third respondent with a recommendation to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner, by proceedings dated 16.05.2007. Thereafter, when the petitioner was waiting with a fond hope to get the compassionate appointment, the third respondent rejected his request for compassionate appointment by letter dated 27.11.2007, on the ground that he has attained the age of majority, after 3 years from the date of death of his father and further held that his application for compassionate appointment was belated one. Pursuant to the impugned order dated 27.11.2007 passed by the third respondent, when the petitioner approached the third respondent through Union for reconsideration of the impugned order, his effort did not fetch any result, which forced the petitioner to appeal before the first respondent on 15.12.2008, requesting to consider his claim for compassionate appointment, but again there was no response. However, one more representation was also made in the month of March'2009 with a request for appointment on compassionate ground. But, the respondents 1 and 2 have not passed any order on his representation for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 27.11.2007 passed by the third respondent, since the petitioner made his application on 02.12.2005, this is well within 3 years from the date of death of his father viz; 26.01.2003.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.