R.Marthandan v. Chief Engineer
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 3737. At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to refer to aJudgment of a Division Bench of this Court in [E.Ramasamy v.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board] reported in 2006 (4) M.L.J. 1080,wherein the Division Bench has held as follows:-“In Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and…
- Para 4949. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in M.Raju vs. Unionof India reported in 2009 (4) MLJ 237, has held that application madeseeking appointment on compassionate ground after lapse of areasonable time cannot be considered.10. In the light of the above binding precedents of…
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 23.06.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.SUGUNAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMYW.A.(MD).No.508 of 2011R.Marthandan : AppellantVs.
The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai 2.
The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, K.Pudur, Backside of Race Course Ground, Madurai 7. : Respondents / RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patentagainst the Order dated 01.10.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.13932 of 2010on the file of this Court. Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus, tocall for the records of the 1st respondent in f/vz;/009334/59/ $p8/$p82/2009-4 dagted 01.04.2009 and quash the same as devoid of meritsand directing the respondents to provide an employment to thepetitioner based on his eligibility on the compassionate groundwithin the period stipulated by this Honourable Court. For Appellant: Mr.A.HajamohideenFor Respondents: Mr.V.Panneerselvam JUDGMENT[Judgment of the Court was delivered BY A.ARUMUGHASWAMY, J]Challenge in this Writ Appeal is to the order dated 01.10.2010made in W.P.(MD).No.13932 of 2010.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Appeal areas follows:-(i). The father of the appellant, by name Mr.M.Rengan, who workedas a Helper under the respondents Electricity Board, died due toheard attack on 18.10.1991. At the time of his death, the appellantwas hardly ten years old and his brother was seven years old. Therefore, the mother of the appellant submitted an application on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
204.12.1991 before the respondents requesting them to provideappointment on compassionate ground. The first respondent herein, byhis proceedings dated 22.07.1992, rejected the claim of the mother ofthe appellant on the ground of want of vacancy. After attainingmajority, the appellant made an application on 14.03.2007 to thesecond respondent seeking appointment on compassionate ground. However, by order dated 01.04.2009, the first respondent rejected theclaim of the appellant on the ground that the said application wasmade after three years of the death of the employee. Challenging thesaid order dated 01.04.2009, the appellant filed W.P.(MD).No.13932 of2010 and for a direction to the respondents to provide appointmenton compassionate ground based on his eligibility. The Writ Court, byorder dated 01.10.2010, relying on a Judgment of the First Bench ofthis Court in E.Ramasamy vs. Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu ElectricityBoard reported in 2007 WLR 796, dismissed the said Writ Petition. Asagainst the said order dated 01.10.2010, the appellant has come upwith the present Writ Appeal.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended thatimmediately after the death of his father, the mother of theappellant submitted application on 04.12.1991 before the respondentsand the same was rejected by the first respondent by his proceedingsdated 22.07.1992 on the ground of want of vacancy. Thereafter, afterattaining majority, the appellant made application on 14.03.2007 andthe same was also rejected on the ground that the application wasmade after three years of the death of the employee. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant isentitled for the relief sought for.
On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counselappearing for the respondents that initially, the application made bythe mother of the appellant was rejected on the ground that there wasno vacancy available, and thereafter, after attaining majority, theappellant made an application and the same was also rejected by thefirst respondent, since the appellant made application after threeyears of the death of the employee. Based on the above, the learnedcounsel for the respondents seeks for dismissal of the Writ Appeal.
We have considered the above submissions made by therespective learned counsel and perused the records carefully.
It is the well settled law that appointment on compassionateground is not a right and it is only a grace. The object of offeringemployment on compassionate ground is only to rescue the family fromfacing financial stress and strain. The relevant consideration iswhether the appellant's family was in financial stress and strain atthe time of death of the Government Servant. But, in this case, thefamily could run for about 16 years after the demise of the Government Servant and after attaining majority, the appellant madeapplication seeking appointment on compassionate ground. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to refer to aJudgment of a Division Bench of this Court in [E.Ramasamy v.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board] reported in 2006 (4) M.L.J. 1080,wherein the Division Bench has held as follows:-“In Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and others [(2000) 7SCC 192], the Supreme Court has expressly held thatthere cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such timeas the applicant becomes a major after a number ofyears, unless there are some specific provisions. Thevery basis of compassionate appointment is to see thatthe family gets immediate relief. An application madeafter the period stipulated under the scheme is notmaintainable, and it is not permissible to hold thatsuch application could be made after attaining majority. We are afraid, the Division Bench which rendered thejudgment in Indiraniammal v. Chief Engineer(Personnel), the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No. 800,Anna Salai, Chennai – 2 and another (supra) has notfollowed the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court anddoes not lay down correct law.
The order of the learnedsingle Judge in Meer Ismail Ali. T v. Tamil NaduElectricity Board (supra) is rather cryptic where thelearned single Judge has observed that without goinginto the merits of the controversy the petitioner begiven employment on humanitarian consideration. None ofthe judgments of the Supreme Court cited above areconsidered.” 8. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Stateof J & K v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, reported in 2006(4) MLJ 604 has held asfollows:-17. In the case on hand, the father of the applicantdied in March, 1987. The application was made by theapplicant after four and half years in September, 1991which was rejected in March, 1996. The Writ Petition wasfiled in June, 1999 which was dismissed by the learnedsingle Judge in July, 2000. When the Division Bench decidedthe matter, more than fifteen years had passed from thedate of death of the father of the applicant.
The said factwas indeed a relevant and material fact which went to showthat the family survived in spite of death of the employee. Moreover, in our opinion, the learned single Judge was alsoright in holding that though the order was passed in 1996,it was not challenged by the applicant immediately. He tookchance of challenging the order in 1999 when there wasinter-departmental communication in 1999. The DivisionBench, in our view, hence ought not to have allowed theappeal". https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in M.Raju vs. Unionof India reported in 2009 (4) MLJ 237, has held that application madeseeking appointment on compassionate ground after lapse of areasonable time cannot be considered.10. In the light of the above binding precedents of the SupremeCourt and the Division Bench of this Court, the request of theappellant cannot be considered. The Writ Court has rightly relied onthe Judgment of the First Bench of this Court in E.Ramasamy vs. ChiefEngineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board reported in 2007 WLR 796 anddismissed the said Writ Petition which, in our considered opinion, needs no interference. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is accordinglydismissed. No costs. Sd/ Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To1.The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai 2.2.The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, K.Pudur, Backside of Race Course Ground, Madurai 7.+1cc to Mr.A.Hajamohideen, Advocate, Sr.No.19817JUDGMENT MADE INW.A.(MD).No.508 of 201123.06.2011NBSMA/05.7.2011/4C/2P
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 23 Jun 2011. The bench was K SUGUNA, A ARUMUGHASWAMY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.