K SENTHILKUMAR Vs. CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent with reference to Letter No. 125165/1232/G8/G82/2003-2, dated 13.12.2004, quash the same and direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for suitable post on compassionate ground. The case of the petitioner is that his father Late Nagarajan, while in employment of the respondents/TNEB as Helper in the Office of the Junior Engineer, Operation and Maintenance at Oddanchatram Unit, died on 01.03.1989 as a result of falling down from the Electricity Post. The deceased/-employee left behind him a Son-the petitioner herein, who was 9 year old at that time, Wife, two Daughters and Father. With the meagre terminal benefits and the compensation received, the family could not come out of the penurious position which compelled the petitioner's mother to move a petition to the Board in 1990, however, while rejecting the request for want of qualification, the Board advised the petitioner's mother to submit an application for the petitioner immediately after attaining majority. As per such advise, the petitioner herein, after completing 18 years, made representations dated 11.08.1998 and 18.08.1998 followed by a representation, dated 30.12.1999, by his mother, requesting for compassionate appointment to the son. By letter dated 14.01.2000, the 3rd respondent asked the petitioner's mother to submit the application for compassionate appointment in the given format. By subsequent letter, dated 29.01.2000, the said authority required the petitioner to furnish various documents including indigent certificate from the Tahsildar and no-objection certificate from other legal heirs. Even after complying with such requirement, unfortunately, the 3rd respondent by referring to B.P. No. 46, dated 13.10.1995, and stating that the petitioner did not apply within three years, rejected the request. Despite that, the petitioner was repeatedly making representations but in vain, hence, he filed W.P. No. 37764 of 2001 and, by order dated 21.12.2001, a direction was issued to the Board to consider his request within six weeks and consequently, by order dated, 29.04.2002, the petitioner's plea was rejected. The petitioner filed one another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 26936 of 2004. Ultimately, by the impugned order dated 13.12.2004, the first respondent turned down the request for compassionate appointment.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that often, the petitioner clearly projected his grievance before the Board by pointing out that in the year 2000, already sunk in poverty, with great difficulty, he pursued and passed Diploma in Electric Engineering, however, his request made in the year 1998 after passing the SSLC was never considered positively. Also by pointing out that in terms of B.P. Ms. No. 3, dated 09.01.2007, the limitation period of three years was deleted and therefore, at least now, his plea can be considered, the petitioner again made representation to the Board on 14.02.2007. By letter dated 03.03.2007, R-3 directed the petitioner to submit Legal Heir Certificate and other documents. Unfortunately, in the meanwhile, the above B.P. was also withdrawn. According to the learned counsel, right from 1998, the petitioner has been struggling to get the compassionate appointment and never, the authorities approached the case justly even though the penurious position of the family is substantiated by the petitioner through the certificates produced by him along with the petitions. According to him, this being a pathetic case, absolute interference is called for and a suitable direction is issued so that at least now, the long-standing grievance is redressed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Board states that the guideline of the Board in B.P. No. 46, dated 13.10.1995, provides that in the case of already expired staff while in service, the dependant should apply for employment assistance within three years from the date of issue of the B.P. In this case, as on the date of death of the employee, the petitioner completed hardly 9 years. Therefore, rightly, his application was rejected. Since the impugned letter was based on the above guideline, the present plea of the petitioner may be turned down.