P RAJAMANI TMT Vs. CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is the wife of one Thiru.P.Periyasamy who was employed as a line inspector in the respondent board and who died in harness on 15.11.1996. After his death, an application was made by the appellant for compassionate appointment for her elder son by an application dated 07.04.1997. After calling for details through a communication dated 09.07.1997, the third respondent rejected the claim for compassionate appointment for the elder son by a communication dated 05.12.1998 on the ground that the elder son of the appellant was over aged.

(2.) THEREAFTER, on 11. 11. 1999, the appellant applied for compassionate appointment for her younger son. The said application was forwarded to the second respondent. Her younger son by name Navamani himself made an application on 1.4.2000, along with no objection letters from his other brothers, seeking compassionate appointment. In the said application, details were again called for by the respondent board through its communication dated 10.4.2000. It is relevant to note that though appellant's younger son Navamani applied for compassionate appointment on 11.11.1999 he became major only on 15.3.2000. Nevertheless, his application dated 11.11.1999 was renewed by a personal application made by Navamani himself on 1.4.2000. The claim for such compassionate appointment came to be rejected by the second respondent by a communication dated 24.9.2001 on the ground that the present claim for compassionate appointment for the younger son cannot be considered since he had not completed 18 years within three years period and he had not satisfied the educational qualification of a pass in the 8th standard. It was also stated therein that the application was not made within three years.

(3.) AS against the above submission, Mr.Patturajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board contended that as per the rules prevailing as on date, since an application for appointment on compassionate ground should be made within three years from the date of death of the employee and since the last application was made only on 1.4.2000, the respondent Board was justified in rejecting the said application on the ground of delay. According to the learned counsel, even if the application stated to have been sent on 11.11.1999 can be held to be within time namely 14.11.1999, since the person for whom the appointment was sought for namely the last son of the appellant had not attained the age of 18 years by that date, that application cannot be said to have been made within time. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that applying the decision of the Hon"ble Supreme Court reported in National Hydroelectric, Power Corporation and another v. Nanak Chand and another National Hydroelectric, Power Corporation and another v. Nanak Chand and another National Hydroelectric, Power Corporation and another v. Nanak Chand and another (supra) . the order impugned in the writ petition cannot be interfered with.