Indhumathi Vs The Chairman Cum Managing Director

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in pertaining to the impugned order of the 3rd respondent vide his proceedings in Ka.No.001183/Ni.Bi.2/U.3/Ka.Va.Ve/A.No.178/2021 dated 02.02.2021 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground due to death of her father Dhamodharan while he was in service.

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P. No.16135 of 2021

¶19

For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Illanchezian For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Ramkumar Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 02.02.2021 whereby petitioner's request for compassionate appointment was rejected.

¶22

The challenge is primarily on the ground that the impugned proceedings / order except to state that petitioner's request for compassionate appointment is being rejected does not set out the reasons for rejection and thus the impugned proceedings suffers from violation of principles of natural justice.

¶23

Petitioner is the daughter of the deceased employee Mr.Damodharan who was appointed by the respondent as Record Clerk at Avinashi TNEB Office. Petitioner's father died in harness on 16.06.1994. Petitioner's father died leaving behind petitioner, her mother and her elder sister. Petitioner's father was earlier married to one Mrs.Meera Devi who had a daughter. Soon after petitioner's father had passed away, petitioner's mother applied for appointment on compassionate ground before the 3rd respondent on 22.08.1994 followed by another application before the 1st respondent followed by another application on 26.08.1995. There are certain disputes between the petitioner's family and

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P. No.16135 of 2021

¶27

the petitioner’s father’s first wife and her daughter which was resolved through compromise in O.S.No.75 of 2004 before the District Munsif Court, however, that may not be relevant for the purpose of disposing of the present writ petition, thus not dealt with.

¶28

After the application was taken out by petitioner's mother in the year 1994-1995, another application was made by petitioner's elder sister sometime in the year 2011, that was also kept pending. Petitioner filed an application on 17.08.2015 on turning 15 years, that is three years before she attained majority. The request by the petitioner was rejected. While it is true that the order of rejection does not set out any reasons and normally this Court would have remitted the matter back for fresh consideration, however, I would think it may not be necessary to do so for the following reasons:

¶29

i) Firstly, remitting the matter back to the authorities may not serve any purpose inasmuch as the petitioner may not be entitled to compassionate appointment for more than one reason, in terms of the Board Standing Order dated 12.02.2025 in (Per.) FB TNPDCL Proceedings No.03 (Administrative Branch), inasmuch as application ought to be made within a period of three years from the date of death of the employee, petitioner was only 6 months old when her father passed away.

¶30

ii) Secondly, there are three if not four application, submitted by more than four persons, initially by petitioner's mother, thereafter by her elder sister

¶31

Page 3 of 6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P. No.16135 of 2021

¶34

followed by the petitioner. When it comes to alternative application for compassionate appointment, it would be covered by paragraph 9 of the Board Standing Order (cited supra) which provides that alternative application must be

¶35

made within a period of one year from the date of submission of the initial application for appointment and it further provides that alternative application

¶36

is permitted to be made only once. Neither of these two conditions are satisfied even if the application by the petitioner is to be treated as alternative application inasmuch as the original application has been made by petitioner's mother, followed by her elder sister.

¶37