P KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admittedly, the petitioner was aged about twelve and half years when his father, who was working as Lineman in the third respondent-Electricity Board, died on 02.01.1993. On behalf of the petitioner, his mother sent a representation on 1.9.1997 and the same was rejected on the ground that her son has not attained majority. The petitioner again sent a representation on 28.12.1998 and the third respondent by the impugned proceedings dated 1.8.2000 rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner has not applied within three years from the date of death of his father. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to 0the proceedings of the third respondent in letter No.Me.Po./Ni.Pi.3/Vu.3/ Ko.Va.Ve./62/ 2000-11 dated 1.8.2000 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in a suitable post on compassionate grounds in respondents Board, placing reliance on the proceedings of the respondents Board in B.P.Ms.(FB)No.46 (Admn,Br.)dated 13.10.1995.

(2.) . In this regard, I am obliged to refer the decision dated 25.1.1999 made in W.P.No.14134 of 1991, wherein P. Sathasivam, J, following the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Bhagwan Singh reported in 1995 (6) SCC 476 and STATE OF U.P. v. PARASNATH reported in 1998 (2) SCC 412, rejected the request for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that the appointment on compassionate ground is intended only to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased employee and to help the family in distress.

(3.) . In UNION OF INDIA v. BHAGWAN SINGH reported in 1995 (6) SCC 476, the Apex Court has held as under.