T MARIMUTHU S/O THANGARAJ Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD (PERSONAL), REGIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (CENTRAL), TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 05.01.2005 passed in W.P. (MD) No. 4150/2004. The appellant is the petitioner in the above said writ petition.

(2.) One Thangaraj, the father of the petitioner, was working as a Lineman in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (in short 'the Board') in Mathur Division under the 3rd respondent's control. He died in harness on 12.11.1985. His wife made a representation before the 3rd respondent on 12.04.1999 requesting him to consider her family circumstances and provide employment on compassionate ground for her son, the appellant, who has studied upto 9th standard, as heir of the deceased. In response to it, the 3rd respondent, by means of his letter dated 19.11.1999, replied that as per the Board's Scheme, till the individual attains the age of 18 years, her request could not be considered. Thereafter, on 23.04.2001, she again sent a representation to the 3rd respondent stating that her son had completed 18 years and therefore an employment on compassionate grounds may be provided to him. On 07.05.2001, a reply was sent by the 3rd respondent to her mentioning that since 16 years have passed after the death of the deceased, her request could not be considered. Thereafter, the appellant, himself sent a request on 21.04.2003 to the 1st respondent requesting for appointment on compassionate grounds. As there was no response, he filed the writ petition praying for a direction to the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground on the basis of the written representations made on behalf of him on 12.04.1999 and 23.04.2001. However, the said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court National Hydroelectric Power Corporation V/s. Nanak Chand. Hence the writ appeal.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the wife of the deceased employee was an illiterate and their children were in tender years and therefore they did not make any representation within three years from the date of the death of the employee. He further submitted that in fact the wife of the deceased employee had approached the higher authorities for appointment on compassionate ground, for which a reply was given stating that the children should attain majority. Learned Counsel for the appellant would draw the attention of this Court to a Division Bench decision of this Court, in which one of us is a party F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J., P. Rajamani V/s. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and two Ors,2007 WritLR 306 In the said decision, it was held that the rejection of the request on the ground of delay was not sustainable and justifiable and consequently the authorities were directed to entertain the request of the appellant therein and give appointment to the son of the appellant expeditiously.