Veerammal v. The Chief Engineer(Personnel)Tamilnadu Electricity Board800, Anna Salai, Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:2.7.2008 CORAM;THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.NO.3181 OF 1999 Veerammal..Petitionervs1.The Chief Engineer(Personnel)Tamilnadu Electricity Board800, Anna Salai, Chennai 22.The Superintending EngineerMettur Electricity DistributionCircleMettur Dam-12.The Superintending EngineerSalem Electricity DistributionCircle, Udayapatti Bye-pass RoadSalem 14 ..Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India for the issue of writ of Mandamus directing therespondents to pay the petitioner terminal benefits due to thedeath of the petitioner's husband during his service on 11.10.1977and to give employment to the petitioner's son Mr.Varadhan oncompassionate ground. For petitioner : Mr.D.Hariparanthamanor petitioner : Mr.D.HariparanthamanFor respondents : Mrs.Yamuna DeviFor respondents : Mrs.Yamuna Devi ORDER ORDERHeard both sides.Heard both sides.2.2.The petitioner is the first wife of the deceasedThe petitioner is the first wife of the deceasedVeerasamy who was an employee of the Electricity Board. When heVeerasamy who was an employee of the Electricity Board. When hewas working as an Helper in the Board on 11.10.1977 he gotwas working as an Helper in the Board on 11.10.1977 he gotelectrocuted and died instantaneously. Subsequent to his deathelectrocuted and died instantaneously. Subsequent to his deaththere were claims from two sets of legal representatives to thethere were claims from two sets of legal representatives to thesaid deceased Veerasamy who had two wives and eight children. said deceased Veerasamy who had two wives and eight children. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.3.On account of his death, a Workmen's Compensation claimOn account of his death, a Workmen's Compensation claimwas filed before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem inwas filed before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem inW.C.No.61/1983 and the amount was ordered in his favour by theW.C.No.61/1983 and the amount was ordered in his favour by theCommissioner on 4.5.1983. Since there was a dispute among theCommissioner on 4.5.1983. Since there was a dispute among thefamily members, the matter was also taken to the Civil Court withfamily members, the matter was also taken to the Civil Court withreference to the entitlement of the benefits arising out of deathreference to the entitlement of the benefits arising out of deathof Veerasamy. The Civil Suit being O.S.No.410/1981 was decreed inof Veerasamy. The Civil Suit being O.S.No.410/1981 was decreed infavour of the petitioner holding that the petitioner is entitledfavour of the petitioner holding that the petitioner is entitledto the assets of deceased Veerasamy vide judgment dated 11.1.1983.to the assets of deceased Veerasamy vide judgment dated 11.1.1983.4.4.It is submitted by the petitioner that thereafter theyIt is submitted by the petitioner that thereafter theywere asking for compassionate appointment and also settlement ofwere asking for compassionate appointment and also settlement ofterminal benefits on account of death of Veerasamy in the yearterminal benefits on account of death of Veerasamy in the year1977. According to the petitioner, the service records were found1977. According to the petitioner, the service records were foundmissing and they were tracing out the records and in themissing and they were tracing out the records and in themeanwhile, they were also informed that unless the terminalmeanwhile, they were also informed that unless the terminalbenefits issue was settled, the question of considering thebenefits issue was settled, the question of considering therequest for compassionate appointment may not arise. request for compassionate appointment may not arise. 5.5.Subsequently, it is after correspondence between theSubsequently, it is after correspondence between theparties, the petitioner made a request for compassionateparties, the petitioner made a request for compassionateappointment in favour of her son Varadhan. It must be noted thatappointment in favour of her son Varadhan. It must be noted thatthe said Varadhan was only seven years old at the time of death ofthe said Varadhan was only seven years old at the time of death ofVeerasamy, who died on 11.10.1977. There was no request forVeerasamy, who died on 11.10.1977. There was no request foremployment for the petitioner but on the contrary, she preferredemployment for the petitioner but on the contrary, she preferredto seek an employment to her son Varadhan in preference to theto seek an employment to her son Varadhan in preference to theother children. As the Board did not comply with that request,other children. As the Board did not comply with that request,the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking for athe petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking for adirection to provide compassionate appointment to her son Varadhandirection to provide compassionate appointment to her son Varadhanand also to settle the terminal benefits.and also to settle the terminal benefits.6.6.Mrs.Yamunadevi, learned counsel for the respondentMrs.Yamunadevi, learned counsel for the respondentsubmits that in the year 2003 itself the terminal benefits havesubmits that in the year 2003 itself the terminal benefits havebeen settled. With reference to provision of compassionatebeen settled. With reference to provision of compassionateappointment the learned counsel submits that that the request forappointment the learned counsel submits that that the request forcompassionate appointment cannot be considered and that the saidcompassionate appointment cannot be considered and that the saidissue had already been covered by a Division Bench judgment ofissue had already been covered by a Division Bench judgment ofthis Court in E.RAMASAMY V. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD reportedthis Court in E.RAMASAMY V. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD reportedin 2006 (4) MLJ 1080 which was rendered in respect of the Boardin 2006 (4) MLJ 1080 which was rendered in respect of the Boarditself. itself. 7.7.However, Mr.D.Hariparanthaman, learned counsel for theHowever, Mr.D.Hariparanthaman, learned counsel for thepetitioner submits that this Court in W.P.No.39010/2002 datedpetitioner submits that this Court in W.P.No.39010/2002 dated10.09.2005 has held that while Kith and Kin of a person in the10.09.2005 has held that while Kith and Kin of a person in theevent of natural death are provided with compassionateevent of natural death are provided with compassionateappointment, much more attention should be given to the legalappointment, much more attention should be given to the legalrepresentatives of the persons who die while performing duties.representatives of the persons who die while performing duties.Therefore, in the present case, since the petitioner’s husbandTherefore, in the present case, since the petitioner’s husband https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ died due to electrocution, this case should be dealt withdied due to electrocution, this case should be dealt withsympathy. He also submitted that the Division Bench judgment insympathy. He also submitted that the Division Bench judgment inRamasamy’s case (cited supra) will have no direct bearing and hisRamasamy’s case (cited supra) will have no direct bearing and hiscase comes within the norms prescribed by the Board in B.P.No.46case comes within the norms prescribed by the Board in B.P.No.46dated 13.10.1995 where there is no limitation prescribed in casedated 13.10.1995 where there is no limitation prescribed in caseof persons who have died before the cut-off date. of persons who have died before the cut-off date. 8.8.This Court is unable to agree with both the submissions.This Court is unable to agree with both the submissions.For persons who had died before the B.P., if there is any death,For persons who had died before the B.P., if there is any death,they should make application within three years. In this case,they should make application within three years. In this case,though she has made an application within three years, the causethough she has made an application within three years, the causeof action of making any application for compassionate appointmentof action of making any application for compassionate appointmentarose in the year 1977 and in the civil case, no stay applicationarose in the year 1977 and in the civil case, no stay applicationhas been made. Even thereafter when the issue relating to thehas been made. Even thereafter when the issue relating to theterminal benefits was resolved in 1983, there was no suchterminal benefits was resolved in 1983, there was no suchapplication. At the relevant time, the said Varadhan, son of theapplication. At the relevant time, the said Varadhan, son of thepetitioner, was only a minor and was ineligible to apply for anypetitioner, was only a minor and was ineligible to apply for anysuch post in the Board. such post in the Board. 9.9.The Supreme Court has held in many decisions referred toThe Supreme Court has held in many decisions referred toin Ramasamy's case (cited supra) that compassionate appointment inin Ramasamy's case (cited supra) that compassionate appointment inexercise of Articles 14 and 16 and the purpose of providingexercise of Articles 14 and 16 and the purpose of providingappointment on compassionate ground is to immediately mitigate theappointment on compassionate ground is to immediately mitigate thehardship due to the death of the member of the family. The facthardship due to the death of the member of the family. The factthat her son was a minor at the time of death of his father, isthat her son was a minor at the time of death of his father, isnot a ground to delay in sending application unless the schemenot a ground to delay in sending application unless the schemeitself provides that as and when a minor becomes a major, he coulditself provides that as and when a minor becomes a major, he couldbe appointed without any time limit. In the present case, if anybe appointed without any time limit. In the present case, if anysuch direction is given that would amount to providing ansuch direction is given that would amount to providing anemployment after a period of 31 years. The argument thatemployment after a period of 31 years. The argument thatRamasamy's case has no direct application is stated to beRamasamy's case has no direct application is stated to berejected. Further, the judgment of the learned judge relied on byrejected. Further, the judgment of the learned judge relied on bythe petitioner is only an observation and is not with reference tothe petitioner is only an observation and is not with reference toany particular scheme and it cannot have a binding precedent inany particular scheme and it cannot have a binding precedent inthe light of the Division Bench Judgment in Ramasamy’s case whichthe light of the Division Bench Judgment in Ramasamy’s case whichsquarely covers this issue.squarely covers this issue.10.10.The Supreme Court vide its decision in STATE BANK OFThe Supreme Court vide its decision in STATE BANK OFINDIA V. SOMVIR SINGH reported in 2007 (4) SCC 778 in paras 7 andINDIA V. SOMVIR SINGH reported in 2007 (4) SCC 778 in paras 7 and10 have observed as follows:-10 have observed as follows:-"7. Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India"7. Article 16(1) of the Constitution of Indiaguarantees to all its citizens equality ofguarantees to all its citizens equality ofopportunity in matters relating to employment oropportunity in matters relating to employment orappointment to any office under the State. Articleappointment to any office under the State. Article16(2) protects citizens against discrimination in16(2) protects citizens against discrimination inrespect of any employment or office under the Staterespect of any employment or office under the Stateon grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex andon grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex anddescent. It is so well settled and needs nodescent. It is so well settled and needs no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ restatement at our end that appointment onrestatement at our end that appointment oncompassionate grounds is an exception carved out tocompassionate grounds is an exception carved out tothe general rule that recruitment to publicthe general rule that recruitment to publicservices is to be made in a transparent andservices is to be made in a transparent andaccountable manner providing opportunity to allaccountable manner providing opportunity to alleligible persons to compete and participate in theeligible persons to compete and participate in theselection process. Such appointments are requiredselection process. Such appointments are requiredto be made on the basis of open invitation ofto be made on the basis of open invitation ofapplications and merit. Dependants of employeesapplications and merit. Dependants of employeesdied in harness do not have any special ordied in harness do not have any special oradditional claim to public services other than theadditional claim to public services other than theone conferred, if any, by the employer."one conferred, if any, by the employer."10.10.There is no dispute whatsoever that theThere is no dispute whatsoever that theappellant Bank is required to consider the requestappellant Bank is required to consider the requestfor compassionate appointment only in accordancefor compassionate appointment only in accordancewith the scheme framed by it and no discretion aswith the scheme framed by it and no discretion assuch is left with any of the authorities to makesuch is left with any of the authorities to makecompassionate appointment dehors the scheme. Incompassionate appointment dehors the scheme. Inour considered opinion the claim for compassionateour considered opinion the claim for compassionateappointment and the right, if any, is traceableappointment and the right, if any, is traceableonly to the scheme, executive instructions, rules,only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules,etc. framed by the employer in the matter ofetc. framed by the employer in the matter ofproviding employment on compassionate grounds.providing employment on compassionate grounds.There is no right of whatsoever nature to claimThere is no right of whatsoever nature to claimcompassionate appointment on any ground other thancompassionate appointment on any ground other thanthe one, if any, conferred by the employer by waythe one, if any, conferred by the employer by wayof scheme or instructions as the case may be." of scheme or instructions as the case may be." 11.11.Further the Supreme Court in its decision in I.G.Further the Supreme Court in its decision in I.G.(KARMIK) AND OTHERS V. PRAHALAD MANI TRIPATHI reported in 2007(KARMIK) AND OTHERS V. PRAHALAD MANI TRIPATHI reported in 2007(6) SCC 162 in para 7 has observed as follows:(6) SCC 162 in para 7 has observed as follows:"7.Public employment is considered to be a"7.Public employment is considered to be awealth. It in terms of the constitutional schemewealth. It in terms of the constitutional schemecannot be given on descent. When such an exceptioncannot be given on descent. When such an exceptionhas been carved out by this Court, the same must behas been carved out by this Court, the same must bestrictly complied with. Appointment strictly complied with. Appointment oncompassionate ground is given only for meeting theimmediate hardship which is faced by the family byreason of the death of the bread earner. When anappointment is made on compassionate ground, itshould be kept confined only to the purpose it seeksto achieve, the idea being not to provide forendless compassion." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12.12.In the light of the above, this Writ Petition isIn the light of the above, this Writ Petition isdismissed. No costs. dismissed. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarsalTo1.The Chief Engineer(Personnel)Tamilnadu Electricity Board800, Anna Salai, Chennai 22.The Superintending EngineerMettur Electricity DistributionCircleMettur Dam-13.The Superintending EngineerSalem Electricity DistributionCircle, Udayapatti Bye-pass RoadSalem 14+1cc to Mr.D.Hariparanthaman, Advocate Sr 34012+1cc to Mrs. V.Yamuna Devi, Advocate Sr 34536BVN (CO)km/2.9.W.P.NO.3181 of 1999