A.SOWTHAMANI Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of rejection dated 07.07.2015 rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners states that the father of the writ petitioners was employed as a Field Assistant in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and died on 28.04.1996. The application, seeking compassionate appointment was considered, pursuant to the directions issued by the Principal Seat of this Court in W.P.No.4096 of 2004, dated 01.04.2011. Accordingly, the Executive Engineer, Dindigul directed the son of the writ petitioner, namely, A.Karal Marx to appear before the authority along with other documents. At that time, the mother of the writ petitioner attended the office of the Executive Engineer and informed that the son was not mentally well and therefore, the youngest daughter of the deceased employee shall be provided with an appointment. Accordingly, the application submitted by the writ petitioners on 21.11.2012 was again considered by the competent authorities. However, the said application was submitted belatedly and beyond the period of limitation. This apart, the writ petitioners were already married and as per the terms and conditions of the scheme of compassionate appointment, the cases of the writ petitioners cannot be considered. Challenging the said rejection order, the present Writ Petition is filed.

(3.) The scheme of compassionate appointment is a concession and the scheme is being special one cannot be extended in violation of the terms and conditions stipulated in the scheme. The very purpose and object of the scheme is to mitigate the circumstances arisen on account of the sudden death of a Government employee.