Allowed

K.S.Swarnalatha, v. the Chief Engineer

Madras HC8 Nov 2011WP/13734/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner, whose father died in service. The court set aside the rejection order, directing the respondent to consider the petition as the petitioner had attained 18 years of age by the time the consideration was made, relying on Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 07.04.2011 is set aside, and the third respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation for compassionate appointment.

K.S.Swarnalatha, Vs the Chief Engineer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.11.2011

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶5

W.P.No.13734 of 2011

¶6

K.S.Swarnalatha ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The Chief Engineer,
Personal Administration,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Chennai-2.
2.The Chief Engineer(Distribution)
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Erode.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Salem Distributing Circle,
Salem-14. ... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent in his letter No.006855/658/NePII/Assist2/Ko.Va.Ve /11 dated 07.04.2011 and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner considering the death of the petitioner's father V.Kandasamy (Foreman Grade-I) expired on 30.06.2006.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mrs.A.Arulmozhi For Respondents : Mr.R.Varalakshmi O R D E R

¶9

The petitioner's father died on 30.06.2006 while he was employed as Foreman Grade-I in the respondents-Electricity Board at Salem. The petitioner's mother made a representation dated

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

15.06.2007 seeking appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. The said application was returned on 09.07.2007, on the ground that it was not in a prescribed format and the petitioner's mother was directed to submit the application in the prescribed format. While so, the petitioner made a representation dated 26.12.2007 in the prescribed format seeking compassionate appointment to her due to the death of her father. The said application was rejected by the second respondent by impugned order dated 07.04.2011. The reason given in the impugned order is that the petitioner did not reach 18 years of age within three years from the date of her father's death i.e., 30.06.2006. The petitioner has questioned the said order dated 07.04.2011 and sought for a direction to consider for compassionate appointment.

¶12

No counter affidavit is filed. The learned counsel Mrs.R.Varalakshmi, appearing for the respondents-Electricity Board made her submissions based on her instructions.

¶13

Heard both sides.

¶14

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was under 18 years of age, when she made the application dated 26.12.2007 and also she did not complete 18 years of age before 30.06.2009, the petitioner reached 18 years of age, when the second respondent considered for compassionate appointment and passed the impugned order dated 07.04.2011 and therefore, the impugned order is to be interfered with and her claim has to be considered as per the judgment reported in (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 195 in the cases of SYED KHADIM HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS.

¶15

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Board has sought to sustaine the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶16

The petitioner's father died on 30.06.2006 while he was in service. The date of birth of the petitioner is 16.09.1992 and she has completed 18 years of age on 15.09.2010. She did not complete 18 years of age on 30.06.2009. The petitioner's mother made a representation dated 15.06.2007 seeking compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The same was returned on 09.07.2007 directing the petitioner's mother to re-submit the application in the prescribed format. While so, the petitioner made a representation dated 26.12.2007 seeking compassionate appointment and the same was rejected by the third respondents by its order dated 07.04.2011 on the ground that the petitioner did not complete 18 years of age within three years from the date of death of her father. The Impugned order dated 07.04.2011 is extracted here under:-

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

ghh;itapy; fz;l jiyikg;bghwpahsh;-gzpaikg;g[- brd;id mth;fspd; fojj;jpy; bry;tp/nf/brhh;zyjh. jh-bg/ (fh/br) tp/fe;jrhkp Kfth; Kjy;epiy. mth;fSf;F thhpa tpjpKiwfspd;go thhpag;gzpahsh; ,we;j ehspypUe;J K:d;W tUl';fSf;Fs; kDjhuUf;F 18 taJ g{h;j;jpailahj fhuzj;jpdhy; fUiz mog;gilapy; thhpR ntiy tH';f ,ayhJ vd jfty; bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gij jftYf;fhf bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.

¶19

It is true that the petitioner did not complete 18 years of age as on 30.06.2009, i.e., three years from the date of death, but she crossed 18 years of age when the impugned order was passed. The 3^rd respondent shall consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as she has crossed 18 years of age at the time of consideration of her application, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the case of SYED KHADIM HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS. In the similar circumstances, the Apex Court in the case of SYED KHADIM HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 195, directed the respondent therein to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner therein. In that case, the appellant therein was 9 years of age when his father died and the petitioner submitted the application on 07.09.1995. The same was rejected by the Authority on 12.10.2001 on the ground that the appellant at the time of filing the application was aged only 13 years, three months and 23 days old and therefore, he could not be appointed in the Government service. The said order of the Authority dated 12.10.2001 was set aside by the Apex Court and the Apex Court directed the authorities to consider the application of the appellant therein and give him appropriate appointment within a reasonable time. Paragraphs 2 and 6 of the said order of the Apex Court are extracted here under:-

¶20

"2. The appellant's father was working as a peon in the Public Works Department of the Government of Bihar. He died in harness on 12.09.1991 leaving behind the widow and five minor children. After the death of the appellant's father the appellant's mother submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds on 02.04.1993. This application was within time but it was rejected for the reason that it was not in the prescribed pro forma. The appellant herein was a child aged about 9 years at the time of the death of his father. He submitted an application on 07.09.1995. This application was rejected by the authorities on 12.10.2001 by holding that the appellant at the time

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

of filing the application was aged only 13 years and 3 months and 23 days old and, therefore, he could not be appointed in Government service.

¶23

As the widow had submitted the application in time the authorities should have considered her application. As eleven years have passed she would not be in a position to join the government service. In our opinion, this is a fit case where the appellant should have been considered in her place for appointment. Counsel for the State could not point out any other circumstance for which the appellant would be disentitled to be considered for appointment. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the respondent authorities to consider the application of the appellant and give him appropriate appointment within a reasonable time at least within a period of three months. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

¶24

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 07.04.2011 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The 3^rd respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation for compassionate appointment in the light of the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 195 in the cases of SYED KHADIM HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS), within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. No Costs.

¶26

Sd/Asst.Registrar. /true copy/

¶27

Sub Asst.Registrar. rrg

¶28

¶29

1.The Chief Engineer, Personal Administration, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai-2.

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

2.The Chief Engineer(Distribution) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Erode.

¶32

3.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Salem Distributing Circle Salem District.

¶33

1 cc to M/s. A. Arulmozhi, Sr. 68070 W.P.No.13734 of 2011

¶34

RV (CO)
kk 7/12

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.S.Swarnalatha, v. the Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.Swarnalatha, v. the Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.v.Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs the Secretary to Govt.

S. Sheik Abdullah Vs the Commissioner of

P.Swamikannu, Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Dr.K.Dhanalakshmi Vs Govt. of Tamilnadu

J.Rajendran, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

A.Natarajan Vs Director of Collegiate