S. NAGARAJAN Vs. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE, TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, MAHARAJA NAGAR AND THE CHIEF ENGINEER (PERSONAL), ADMINISTRATIVE BRANCH, TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, ANNA SALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DENIAL of appointment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner by the second respondent in his impugned order in letter No. 016837/2G9/G91/2011 -1 dated 31.01.2011, made the petitioner to approach this Court for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the said order and to direct the respondents to provide employment on compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that his father, by name, P. Sundaramoorthi, was employed as an Assessor in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in Tirunelveli Electricity Distribution Circle and on 03.04.2003, he died in harness leaving behind him, the petitioner, his mother, his sister and his grandmother. It is the grievance of the petitioner that several applications submitted by the petitioner's mother were rejected by the respondents stating that the petitioner's mother did not possess the requisite educational qualification, in spite of the indigent circumstances of the family. While so, the petitioner attained majority on 12.06.2010. Hence, the petitioner's mother applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 21.06.2010 and the first respondent while rejecting the same, stated that the petitioner did not complete 18 years and no one applied within three years of the death of the deceased employee. Finally, the petitioner's mother applied to the second respondent in the month of January 2011, which came to be rejected on 31.01.2011 by the impugned order on the ground that the application had not been made within three years from the date of death of the deceased employee and the applicant must have completed 18 years at that time. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court with the present writ petition.

(2.) THE respondents filed the counter affidavit contending that the petitioner's father worked as Assessor in the respondent Board and he died in harness on 03.04.2003 and the petitioner's mother applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 07.03.2006, however, the said request was rejected since the petitioner's mother did not possess the requisite qualification, besides a pass in 8th standard. Thereafter, the petitioner's mother submitted several applications seeking appointment on compassionate grounds and they were also rejected by reiterating the stand of the respondents. By the impugned order, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner since the request for such appointment had not been made within three years from the date of death of the deceased employee and the applicant must have completed 18 years at the relevant point of time. Hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's mother had applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 07.03.2006, i.e., before the expiry of the limitation period and the same had been rejected without considering the indigent circumstances of the petitioner's family and the petitioner on attaining majority, applied for such appointment through his mother which also came to be rejected stating that such application has not been submitted within three years and the petitioner did not complete the age of 18 years. However, he submitted that the petitioner could be granted appointment on compassionate grounds, considering the application originally submitted by his mother on 07.03.2006 and the respondents ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner.