The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the son of a deceased contract labourer, holding that the son could not independently challenge the department's rejection of his mother's compassionate appointment application, and directed service of a new departmental order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.02.2017
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P(MD)No.5462 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011
M.Dharmaraj
... Petitioner
vs.
1.Tamilnadu Electricity Board Rep. By its Chairman, Chennai.
2.Chief Engineer(personal) 800, Anna Salai, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Chennai.
3.Regional Chief Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, K.Pudur, Madurai.
4.The Superintendent Engineer,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, K.Pudur, Madurai. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 4th respondent in
Ka.No.UNiA/Nip.2/U.3/Ko.Va.Vae/MaNo.274/10 dated 22.07.2010 and quash the same and direct the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanan
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Respondents : Mr.S.Dhayalan
2
ORDER
The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 4th respondent in Ka.No.UNiA/Nip.2/U.3/Ko.Va.Vae/MaNo.274/10, dated 22.07.2010 and quash the same and direct the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's father was working as a Contract Labour and subsequently, he was identified by the 1st respondent as Bonafide Contract Labour by proceedings dated 02.02.2008. The 4th respondent declared the services of the father of the petitioner as Bonafide Contract Labour and his name was also included in the Contributory Pension Scheme of the respondent. On 20.06.2009, his father was designated as TCL i.e., Temporary Casual Labour. Only at that juncture, all of a sudden the petitioner's father died in harness on 06.09.2009 leaving behind the widow, petitioner and two of his younger brothers who were at that time school going children. Therefore, the petitioner's mother had initially approached the respondents department seeking compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Her request was turned down by the respondents vide proceedings dated 22.07.2010 wherein, the respondents have given a reason that the petitioner's father was working only as a Casual Labour and therefore, for that no compassionate appointment can be given for his death to his legal heir, Thereafter, the petitioner had given a specific request to the respondents on 22.09.2010 and 05.02.2011, wherein, the petitioner had requested the respondents to consider him for compassionate appointment as he is having the qualification of 10th Standard (SSLC). Since the said representations were not considered by the respondents, the petitioner had already approached this Court by filing W.P(MD) No.2426/2011, wherein, this Court by order dated 07.03.2011, passed the following order:-
''5.Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am inclined to direct the second respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner as put forth by him in his last representation dated 5/2/2011 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.''
3.The petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition in the year 2011, challenging the order passed by the 4th respondent dated 22.07.2010, rejecting the request of his mother for compassionate appointment to the petitioner. It is a settled proposition that against the order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ passed in respect of a person who is aggrieved party, no other person even who may be a blood relation of the person aggrieved,
3
can independently maintain a judicial proceedings before any Court of law and therefore, the present writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of the 4th respondent dated 22.07.2010 rejecting the request of the petitioner's mother for grant of compassionate appointment, cannot be maintained by the present petitioner. Therefore, on this ground, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4.Though it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no orders have been passed by the respondents, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents would produce an order dated 14.06.2011 stated to have been passed pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 07.03.2011, whereby the following order has been passed:-
''brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wk;/kJiu Maj;jpy; jpU.K.jh;kuh$;. j/bg.(nyl;) kh.KUfd; vd;ghuhy; bjhlug;gl;l tHf;F vz; 2426/2011-d; jPh;g ;ghiz ehs; 7.3.2011 -f;F , zq;f kDjhuhpd; gzg;gad;fs; ntz;oa [s ;s kD ehs; 5.2.2011 ftdkhf ghprPypf;fg;gl;lJ.
nkw;go kDtpid ghprPypj;jjpy; kDjhuhpd; je;ij jpU.(nyl;)kh.KUfd; jw;fhypf jpdf;Typ bjhHpyhsuhf xj;jf;fil gphptpy; gzpahw;wp fle;j 6.9.2009 md;W cly; eyf; Fiwthy; kuzk; mile;Jtpl;lhh;. md;dhhpd; ,wg;g [ bjhlh;ghf jpU.K.jh;kuh$; vd;ghhplkpUe;J gzg; gad;fs; ntz;o 5.2.2011 ehspl;l kD bgwg;gl;lJ.
nkw;go kDtpid ed;F ghprPypj;jjpy; eilKiwapy; cs;s jkpH;ehL Xa;t{jpa tpjpfspd;go jw;fhypf jpdf;Typ bjhHpyhsh;fshf gzpahw;wp kuzkile;jth;fSf;F Xa;t {jpak; kw;Wk; ,ju gzg;gad;fs; tHq;f ,ayhJ. vdnt jq;fsJ kDtpd; kPJ vt;tpj nky; eltof;ifa [k ; nkw;bfhs;s ,ayhJ vd;W bjhpag;gLj;jg;gLfpwJ.''
5.Even though it was claimed by the petitioner that by representation dated 05.02.2011, the petitioner had claimed only compassionate appointment from the respondents, the present order dated 14.06.2011 now shown by the learned counsel for the respondents discloses that only the request of the petitioner for getting financial benefits out of the death of his father was turned down. At any rate, some order now has been passed which is claimed by the respondents that the same was passed pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 07.03.2011 in W.P.No.2426/2011.
6.In view of the order now passed pursuant to the direction issued by this Court as referred to above, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the same in the manner known to law if he is advised to do so. Since the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said order dated 14.06.2011 now produced by the learned counsel for the respondents has not been served on the petitioner, respondents are directed to serve a copy of the same immediately on the petitioner by Registered Post with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Acknowledgment Due and on receipt of the same, it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law.
4
With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 is closed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar To
1.The Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricity Board Chennai.
2.Chief Engineer(personal) 800, Anna Salai, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Chennai.
3.Regional Chief Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, K.Pudur, Madurai.
4.The Superintendent Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, K.Pudur, Madurai.
+1 cc to MR.N.C.ASHOK KUMAR, Advocate SR.No.6491
W.P(MD)No.5462 of 2011 06.02.2017 SMA/SKN/10.03.2017:4P/6C
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a son can independently maintain a writ petition challenging an order rejecting his mother's application for compassionate appointment after her death.
Whether the petitioner was entitled to challenge the rejection of his father's status for pension scheme purposes.
Whether the power to grant compassionate appointment lies with the High Court or the department.
M. Dharmaraj
Tamilnadu Electricity Board
R. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
