M ANANTHAMMAL Vs. CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is challenging the order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings f.vz;.204253/36| cepm/vk; gp 2/th.Btiy/11 ehs;_08.02.2010 and consequently seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment to any lower post on compassionate grounds.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that her husband G.Senthurpandi, was employed as Mazdoor Grade-II, Pasuvanthanai, Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle, Tuticorin District. THE petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and hails from a downtrodden family and her husband G.Senthurpandi, during the course of his employment, died in harness on 08.06.2008 leaving behind the petitioner and two minor children as his legal heirs. After the death of sole bread winner of the family having left with no other source of income to support the family, the petitioner approached the third respondent to consider her for an appointment in any lower posts on compassionate ground by making an application on 22.01.2011. THE petitioner's qualification is fail in 8th standard. THE said application submitted by the petitioner dated 22.01.2011, was rejected by the third respondent through the impugned order dated 08.02.2011 on three grounds namely, 1)the appointment of compassionate grounds to be considered only in respect of persons who passed 8th standard; 2)her application was filed after three years from the date of death of the deceased employee and 3)the petitioner had not completed 18 years at the time of making an application.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner's husband died on 08.06.2008 and the application for compassionate appointment was filed by the petitioner on 22.01.2011. THErefore, when the said application was filed within three years from the date of death of the husband, the reasons assigned in the impugned order that the petitioner had not filed the application within three years is totally erroneous one and without application of mind to the facts and circumstance of the case. Insofar as the qualification is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is not seeking a post which requires a pass in 8th standard as qualification, but on the other hand, she is willing to have compassionate appointment in any post for which the present qualification of the petitioner is sufficient. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.23561 of 2009 dated 20.09.2010 in the case of A.Sakila Banu -vs- THE Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002 and others.