E RAMASAMY Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.A.No.336 of 2003: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No.39441 of 2002 dated 25.10.2002. W.A.No.997 of 2006: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No.17640 of 2004 dated 21.03.2006. W.A.No.1006 of 2006: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No.4333 of 2006 dated 22.03.2006. All these appeals relate and involve common questions of law and facts, and hence are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to these appeals are stated in a nutshell as follows: - Writ Appeal No. 336 of 2003 THE father of the appellant herein was employed as a Lineman with theTamil Nadu Electricity Board. He died in harness on 22.01.1994. At that time, the appellant was aged about 11 years. THE appellants elder brother namely, E.Govindaraj was aged 19 years at the time of his fathers death and he applied for compassionate appointment immediately on the death of his father. However, the respondent/Board vide order dated 30.10.1996 rejected the request for compassionate appointment, as the appellants brother did not possess necessary educational qualification for being appointed in the service of the Board. THE appellant attained majority in the year 2001. In the same year, the mother of the appellant sent a representation to the respondent/Board requesting for appointment of the appellant on compassionate ground. Since there was no response to the said representation, a fresh representation was made on 8.8.2002 and a legal notice was also sent by registered post with acknowledgment due. As there was no response from the Board even after legal notice, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.39441 of 2002 seeking a direction to the respondent/Board for providing compassionate appointment to him. THE learned single Judge relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2000 (7) SCC 193 held that if the appellant/petitioner is to be appointed on compassionate ground, it would amount to compelling the Electricity Board to keep one post vacant for ever to be filled up on compassionate ground, among the persons coming under the family of the deceased employee. THE learned single Judge further held that there is no express provision under the scheme of the Electricity Board to keep such post forever. Consequently, finding no legal right vested with the petitioner for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground, the learned single Judge dismissed the petition. W.A.No. 997 of 2006 THE father of the respondent, who was working as Wireman/Lineman under theTamil Nadu Electricity Board/ first appellant herein, died in harness on 20.10.999 leaving behind him the respondent, his elder brother, his mother and two daughters. THE respondent was 14 years of age and was studying 8th standard at the time of his fathers death. THE respondent made an application on 18.11.2000 for appointment on compassionate ground. THE appellant/Board declined the request made by the respondent for appointment in the first appellant/Board on the ground that he had not completed 18 years of age. THE respondent attained majority on 10.04.2003. He made another representation on 23.9.2003 to the Board requesting for compassionate appointment, which was rejected by the Board vide order dated 07.11.2003. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed W.P.No.17640 of 2004 seeking a direction to the appellant/Board to provide compassionate employment to the respondent. THE learned single Judge following the earlier decision of this Court in Meer Ismail Ali.T v. THETamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2004 (3) CTC 120) held that the application made by the respondent on attaining majority is maintainable, and consequently issued direction to the appellant/Board to consider the application of the respondent within a period of six weeks. W.A.No.1006 of 2006 THE father of the respondent was working as a Field Assistant under theTamil Nadu Electricity Board/first appellant herein, and he died on 8.12.2001 leaving behind his wife, two daughters including the respondent. THE mother of the respondent requested the Board to give compassionate appointment to the respondent on 22.4.2004. By order dated 11.8.2004, the appellant/Board declined the request of the respondent on the ground that the application ought to have been filed within three years. THE respondent completed 18 years of age on 15.06.2005. She sent a fresh representation on 12.9.2005. As there was no response from the Board, the respondent approached this Court seeking a direction to the Board to provide compassionate appointment. THE learned single Judge rejected the defence of the Board that the application was filed beyond the period of three years and therefore not maintainable. In support of his conclusion, he relied upon the decision of this Court reported in Meer Ismail Ali.T v. THETamil Nadu Electricity Board (cited supra).

(3.) IN State of Haryana & Ors. v. Rani Devi & Anr. (AIR 1996 SC 2445), the Supreme Court while examining the object of compassionate appointment pointed out that the claim of the person concerned for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premise that he was dependant on the deceased-employee. Strictly this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of INdia. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative orders which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. IN the aforesaid case, it was held that the scheme regarding appointment on compassionate ground if extended to all types of casual or ad hoc employees including those who worked as apprentices cannot be justified on constitutional grounds.