@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
R. Mahadevan, J.@mdashDenial of appointment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner by the second respondent in his impugned order in letter No. 016837/2G9/G91/2011-1 dated 31.01.2011, made the petitioner to approach this Court for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the said order and to direct the respondents to provide employment on compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that his father, by name, P. Sundaramoorthi, was employed as an Assessor in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in Tirunelveli Electricity Distribution Circle and on 03.04.2003, he died in harness leaving behind him, the petitioner, his mother, his sister and his grandmother. It is the grievance of the petitioner that several applications submitted by the petitioner''s mother were rejected by the respondents stating that the petitioner''s mother did not possess the requisite educational qualification, in spite of the indigent circumstances of the family. While so, the petitioner attained majority on 12.06.2010. Hence, the petitioner''s mother applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 21.06.2010 and the first respondent while rejecting the same, stated that the petitioner did not complete 18 years and no one applied within three years of the death of the deceased employee. Finally, the petitioner''s mother applied to the second respondent in the month of January 2011, which came to be rejected on 31.01.2011 by the impugned order on the ground that the application had not been made within three years from the date of death of the deceased employee and the applicant must have completed 18 years at that time. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court with the present writ petition.
2. The respondents filed the counter affidavit contending that the petitioner''s father worked as Assessor in the respondent Board and he died in harness on 03.04.2003 and the petitioner''s mother applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 07.03.2006, however, the said request was rejected since the petitioner''s mother did not possess the requisite qualification, besides a pass in 8th standard. Thereafter, the petitioner''s mother submitted several applications seeking appointment on compassionate grounds and they were also rejected by reiterating the stand of the respondents. By the impugned order, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner since the request for such appointment had not been made within three years from the date of death of the deceased employee and the applicant must have completed 18 years at the relevant point of time. Hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner''s father was employed in the respondent Board and on 03.04.2003, he died in harness. Thereafter, the petitioner''s mother submitted the application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on 07.03.2006, so to say, well within the limitation period. However, the first respondent by order dated 19.03.2006, rejected her claim stating that she did not possess the requisite educational qualifications. Meanwhile, the petitioner attained majority and on his behalf, the petitioner''s mother applied for appointment, which also came to be rejected for the reason that the application had not been made within three years of the death of the deceased employee and the applicant did not complete the age of 18 years.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner''s mother had applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 07.03.2006, i.e., before the expiry of the limitation period and the same had been rejected without considering the indigent circumstances of the petitioner''s family and the petitioner on attaining majority, applied for such appointment through his mother which also came to be rejected stating that such application has not been submitted within three years and the petitioner did not complete the age of 18 years. However, he submitted that the petitioner could be granted appointment on compassionate grounds, considering the application originally submitted by his mother on 07.03.2006 and the respondents ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner.
5. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions:
(i) Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle v. V. Jaya reported in (2007) 6 MLJ 1011.
(iii)
6. The learned Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following judgments:
(i)
(ii) The judgment of this Court in The Chairman v. Tmty. Arayee [W.A. No. 773 of 2003, decided on 20.12.2007]; and
(iii) The order of this Court in S. Karthikeyan v. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board [W.P. No. 2625 of 2007, decided on 13.03.2013].
7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
8. It is not in dispute that the application seeking compassionate appointment was made by the widow of the deceased employee within three years. Her application was rejected on the ground that she did not possess the required educational qualification. Her son, the petitioner before this Court was only a minor at that time. Therefore, it is evident that the family of the deceased was in indigent need of the job.
9. In the judgment in
10. The Division Bench of this Court in The Chairman v. Tmty. Arayee [W.A. No. 773 of 2003, decided on 20.12.2007] has considered the above judgment and rejected the application of the daughter of a deceased employee on the ground that two of her brothers were already employed with the Board.
11. The order of this Court in S. Karthikeyan v. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board [W.P. No. 2625 of 2007, decided on 13.03.2013], is on the ground that the application was not made in time.
12. Upon perusal, this Court is of the view that the above judgments cannot be made squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Even in the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents in The Chairman v. Tmty. Arayee [W.A. No. 773 of 2003, decided on 20.12.2007], the Hon''ble Division Bench in para 13 held as follows:
13. The impugned order of the second appellant dated 22.12.2000 contains two grounds for the rejection of the claim of the respondent/writ petitioner seeking employment for her daughter Saraswathi on compassionate grounds. They are:
1) At the time of the death of the board employee P. Kandasamy, the family was not in indigent circumstances as the two sons of the deceased employee were employed in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board even on the date of death of the deceased board employee; and
(2) The daughter of the respondent herein namely Saraswathi was not educationally qualified to be given employment in any category in the board as she had not even completed fifth standard.
Out of the two reasons, assigned by the second appellant/second respondent in his impugned order, the second ground is not a sound one. The scheme of compassionate appointment is made for helping the members of the family of the Government/Board servant who dies in harness, to come out of the indigent circumstances in which they are placed. The fact that the members of the family are illiterate will be one of the factors showing the indigent circumstances in which the family is placed. If at all rules and regulations do not provide for such relaxation regarding educational or other qualifications of any one of such members of the family for appointment on compassionate grounds, then the appellants would be justified in declining to give appointment to the daughter of the respondent/writ petitioner on the ground that she was not educationally qualified and fit to be appointed in any one of the cadre posts. But in para 5 of the G.O.Ms. No. 155 Labour & Employment Department dated 16.07.1993 which has been adopted by the board proceedings dated 02.11.93, it has been provided that if the widow of the employee is educationally not qualified or not eligible for appointment to a cadre post, she could be given a job like Sweeper. In the very same paragraph it has also been provided that married daughter who has been deserted by her husband and the widowed or divorced daughter living in the family of the deceased Board servant may also be considered if the widow of the deceased employee gives her consent in writing. A conjoint reading of both the clauses will show that the divorced or deserted or widowed daughter of the deceased employee should be treated on par with the widow of the deceased employee, provided the widow of the deceased employee gives her consent in writing. In this case, the respondent herein/writ petitioner has given her consent in writing for giving employment to her daughter on compassionate grounds. Hence the rejection of the application seeking compassionate appointment for Saraswathi, the daughter of the respondent herein/writ petitioner, on the ground that she was not educationally qualified to be appointed in any one of the posts in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is quite erroneous and hence, cannot be sustained.
The ratio behind the order is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Strangely, the respondent board has filed a counter affidavit to overcome the Government Orders granting relaxation by stating at paragraph 5, thus:
(5) I submit that the contention that the Government order and subsequent clarification would be applicable to the petitioner cannot be accepted. As a matter of fact, the respondent Board being statutory corporate body, his framed rules and issued instructions with regard to compassionate appointment. Some of the orders of the Government have been followed and not all the orders passed by the Government were adopted but the respondent Board. In there above circumstances the petitioner''s contention that the orders of the Government and subsequent clarification letter should have been followed in his case is liable to be rejected as untenable.
When a Government Order is issued, the same ought to be followed by the respondent Board. It cannot pick and choose the circumstances as to when the Government Orders will be followed. Such an action would certainly hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
13. The Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment in Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle v. V. Jaya reported in (2007) 6 MLJ 1011, has held as follows:
7. However, in a case of request for appointment on compassionate ground, however, the Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot ignore the very purpose of providing employment on compassionate ground to the dependant of an employee/government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else as it is done so in order to mitigate the hardship to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. The concept of compassionate employment is intended to alleviate the distress of the family and it is for such purpose appointments are permissible and provided even in the rules and regulations and any rigid approach or too technical objections may defeat the very object of the scheme. It is for that purpose while considering the request for compassionate appointment, the authorities are expected to act as a Good Samaritan overlooking the cobwebs of technicalities.
8. What all the Court has to look into is whether the case of the writ petitioner comes under an exception for providing appointment on compassionate ground to mitigate the hardships due to the death of the bread-winner of the family would be smashed.
***** ***** *****
11. With this background, we find that the respondent had failed to adopt Good Samaritan approach ignoring the fact that she was constantly making a request for appointment to the suitable post, even if it is the lowest in the cadre, as early as from 15.11.2000 i.e. within 13 months from the date of death of her husband, which has not been dealt with in proper perspective as observed above.
15. In yet another judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in
12. (a) Similar issue as to whether an application seeking compassionate appointment can be rejected on the ground that the application was not submitted within three years from the date of death of the deceased employee and whether completion of 18 years within three years, is a mandatory requirement when earlier application submitted by other claimant is kept pending, was considered by this Court in the decision reported in
(b) Another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 41459 of 2005 was considered by me on the same set of facts. The said writ petition was allowed following the earlier order of the Division Bench of this Court made in W.A. No. 4008 of 2004 dated 1.12.2004 and the said decision is reported in
(c) In W.P. No. 21512 of 2003 one Indiraniammal challenged the rejection of compassionate appointment on similar ground. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated 4.8.2003 against which the petitioner therein filed W.A. No. 3050 of 2003 and the said writ appeal was allowed by the Division Bench (consisting of the Hon''ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam (as he then was) & S.K. Krishnan, J) by order dated 8.3.2005 following the earlier judgments as well as the Supreme Court Judgment reported in
(d) Dismissal of another W.P. No. 775 of 2004 by order dated 29.1.2005 on the ground of delay was considered by the Division Bench (F.M. Ibrahim Kalifullah, J. (as he then was) & P. Murugesan, J) in W.A. (MD). No. 29 of 2006 and by order dated 27.6.2006 the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal and directed to give compassionate appointment to the younger son of the deceased Board employee, who died on 15.11.1996. The said order of the Division Bench was also challenged by the Board in SLP(C) No. 15534 of 2007 which was also dismissed by the Apex Court on 8.4.2009.
(e) Three writ petitions were disposed of by me i.e., W.P. Nos. 19914 of 2004, 32409 of 2004 and 10577 of 2005 by common order dated 24.7.2006 wherein similar issue was considered. In respect of the above three writ petitions, which were allowed, writ appeal was filed against one writ petition in W.A. No. 1206 of 2006 while implementing the order in respect of other two cases. The said writ appeal was allowed by the Division Bench on 29.9.2006. The respondent in the writ appeal viz., J. Karthick filed review application which was also rejected by the Division Bench on 25.8.2008. Against the dismissal of the writ appeal as well as rejection of review application, the said J. Karthick filed SLP(C) No. 2004-2005/2009 and on 23.2.2009 the SLPs were tagged along with Civil Appeal No. 2039 of 2006 viz., Indiraniammal case. Subsequently the said SLP was numbered as Civil Case Nos. 5068-5069 of 2009 which was allowed on 30.3.2010 and the said order reads as follows:
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
These Appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 29th September, 2006 and subsequent order dated 25.8.2008 passed in the review application.
The Division Bench of the High Court has reversed the judgment of the learned single Judge only on the ground of delay who directed compassionate appointment to the appellant. The appellant was a minor at the time of the death of his father and since the mother of the appellant applied within time, we are of the opinion that the appellant after becoming major should have been granted compassionate appointment.
Accordingly, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and restore the judgment of the learned single Judge. No costs.
(Emphasis Supplied)
From the perusal of the above order it is evident that the order passed by the Division Bench in writ appeal and in the review petition were set aside and the order of the single Judge dated 29.9.2006 was restored.
(f) In W.P. No. 18575 of 2006 I had an occasion to consider similar issue and allowed the writ petition on 20.6.2006 by following earlier orders. The said order was also challenged by the respondent in W.A. No. 42 of 2007 and the Division Bench (D. Murugesan, J & K. Venkataraman, J) dismissed the writ appeal on 2.7.2009. The Board filed SLP(C) No. 8305 of 2010 which was also dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 6.7.2010. The said candidate viz., P. Venkatesan was given compassionate appointment by order dated 18.8.2010.
(g) Again similar matter was considered by me in W.P. No. 29059 of 2003 and relief granted by order dated 7.7.2006, against which also the Board filed W.A. No. 1652 of 2006. The said writ appeal was dismissed by Division Bench (D. Murugesan, J. & S. Nagamuthu, J.) on 30.3.2009.
(h) W.P. (MD). No. 1335 of 2006 was disposed of by me on 10.8.2006. The said order was also confirmed by the Division Bench (consisting of the Hon''ble Mr. Justice P.D. Dinakaran (as he then was) & P.R. Shivakumar, J.) in W.A. No. 309 of 2007 on 8.8.2007 and the same is reported in Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle v. V. Jaya, (2007) 6 MLJ 1011, and the said candidate viz., V. Jaya was given appointment order.
(i) Similar matter was again considered by me in W.P. No. 4050 of 2006 and the said writ petition was allowed by order dated 29.6.2010 following the orders of the Division Bench and Supreme Court and the said judgment is reported in M. Uma v. Chief Engineer (Personnel), TNEB, Chennai, (2010) 7 MLJ 644. No appeal is filed against the said order.
13. From the above referred decisions passed by this Court in series of cases on the same ground, it is evident that the similar grounds raised by the respondents that the petitioner has not filed application seeking compassionate appointment within three years from the date of death of her father and that she has not completed 18 years of age within three years are not valid grounds to deny appointment on compassionate ground as no one in her family is employed and the family of the petitioner is in indigent circumstance even today as certified by the Revenue Officials. Petitioner''s mother and petitioner are prosecuting the matter before the respondents right from July, 1992.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner also cited a decision of the Supreme Court reported in
19...... once a similar case of Abdul Rashid Rather came up for consideration before a Single Judge and his writ petition was allowed, a direction was issued to the authorities to appoint him as PSI by granting consequential benefits, the learned Single Judge could not be said to have committed any error of law in following the said decision, in allowing the writ petition filed by the present appellant-writ petitioners and in issuing similar directions to the State authorities. This was particularly true because the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench and even by this Court inasmuch as SLP was also dismissed.
20. In our considered opinion, in the light of the facts and circumstances, the Government ought to have accepted and respected the decision of the learned single Judge without filing intra-Court appeal. No distinguishing feature had been brought to the notice of the Division Bench, nor the Division Bench set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge holding or observing that though Abdul Rashid Rather was granted the benefit and the learned Single Judge ordered extension of those benefits to the writ petitioners, they were not entitled because the case of Abdul Rashid Rather was different. Even before us, nothing special or extraordinary fact or circumstance was shown to distinguish the case of Abdul Rashid Rather and of the present appellants. In our opinion, therefore, the learned single Judge was wholly justified in allowing the writ petition and the Division Bench ought not to have interfered with the said decision.
21.....................................
22.....................................
23. In fairness and in view of the fact that the decision in Abdul Rashid Rather had attained finality, the State authorities ought to have gracefully accepted the decision by granting similar benefits to the present writ petitioners. It, however, challenged the order passed by the single Judge. The Division Bench of the High Court ought to have dismissed the letters patent appeal by affirming the order of the single Judge. The letters patent appeal, however, was allowed by the Division Bench and the judgment and order of the learned single Judge was set aside. In our considered view, the order passed by the learned single Judge was legal, proper and in furtherance of justice, equity and fairness in action. The said order, therefore, deserves to be restored.
The said Judgment of the Supreme Court was followed by the Division Bench of this Court (consisting of the Hon''ble Mr. Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya & V. Dhanapalan, J.) in W.A. (MD) Nos. 64 & 111 to 126 of 2007, Judgment dated 14.11.2008. In paragraphs 28 and 29 the Division Bench held thus:
28. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in
29. The above decision of the Apex Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, as in this case, Mamundiraj and others, who were similarly placed like that of the workmen, were given permanent status by the management, but it was not done in the case of the workmen herein, thereby violating the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
14. The issue i.e., to consider similarly placed persons equally if the issue is identical was considered by me in the decision reported in
16.(a) The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner cited the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this was a fit case in which the Tribunal should have condoned the delay in the filing of the application and the appellants should have been given relief in the same terms as was granted by the Full Bench of the Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside, the delay in filing of O.A. No. 774 of 1994 is condoned and the said application is allowed. The appellant would be entitled to the same relief in the matter of pension as has been granted by the Full Bench of the Tribunal in its judgment dated December 16, 1993 in O.A. Nos. 395-403 of 1993 and connected matters. No order as to costs.
(b) In another decision cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner reported in
8....we do not find any reasonable justification to confine the relief to only such of the teachers who approached the Court and having regard to the fact that relief related to the revision of scales of pay, every one of that class of teachers who approached would be entitled to the benefit, notwithstanding that they have not approached the Court. We are in equal agreement with the Division Bench in denying the payment of interest at compounded rates which, in our view, cannot be justified at all on the facts and circumstances of the case wherein a serious and genuine doubt existed about the applicability of the government order dated 30.3.1990, as raised in the proceedings.
9. For all the reasons stated above, the appeals filed both by the State as well as by the private respondent teachers fail and shall stand dismissed. Our declaration to extend the benefits of the judgments to others who have not approached the Court, but similarly placed is to do complete and substantial justice. No costs.
(c) In yet another decision reported in Govind Ram Purohit and another v. Jagjiwan Chandra and others, 1999 SCC (L&S) 788, in para 3 the Honourable Supreme Court held thus,
3. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that whereas the petition had been filed by only Respondent 1, the High Court while finally concluding the matter has given a direction to promote all those who were senior to the appellants even though they were not parties to the petition. Once the High Court had placed a particular interpretation on the Rules, the benefit of that interpretation had to go to all those who qualified under the seniority-cum-merit rule. There was no point in waiting for each and every person to file a petition. Therefore, we do not see any reason why we should entertain such a technical plea when the High Court has done substantial justice to all concerned.
From the analysis of the judgments cited above, it is beyond doubt and clear that once the point is decided in favour of a group of persons, there is no further point in waiting for each and every person to file petition and pray for the same relief. As held by the Honourable Supreme Court, the benefit of the judgment is equally applicable to similarly placed persons to do complete and substantial justice.
17. The Law Department as well as the Finance Department of the respondents/Corporation considered the similarity of the issue involved and recommended to the respondents to pay the recovered amount to the petitioners as well. Hence the denial of the said benefit to the petitioners is unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The decisions cited by the learned Additional Advocate General reported in
The said decision is confirmed in W.A. No. 956 of 2006 by the Division Bench by Judgment dated 30.10.2006. SLP(C) No. 677 of 2007 filed against the same was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 23.4.2007.
16. Having regard to the abovesaid facts as well as the undisputed facts regarding the claim of the petitioner''s mother made in July, 1992 i.e., within one year from the date of death of petitioner''s father and no final order having been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner''s brother as per the petitioner''s mother''s request, respondents are not justified in passing the impugned order.
17. Applying the above referred judgments to the facts of this case the impugned order is set aside with direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner treating the application submitted by the petitioner on 11.4.2005 as a continuation of application submitted by the petitioner''s mother on 31.7.1992 in the light of the income certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Vilavancodu, dated 15.3.2005 and pass fresh orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, without reference to the objections raised in the impugned order.
15. The argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent Board that in the above case, the application submitted by the widow was pending and in the present case, the application was already rejected and therefore, both the cases cannot be treated as at par, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the widowed mother of the petitioner was desperate to get the job and she has been repeatedly requesting the respondent Board for appointment. In spite of the fact that the Government Order in G.O.Ms No 155 Labour and Employment dated 16.07.1993 adopted by the board proceedings in 02.11.1993, the mother of the petitioner was eligible for appointment in some post based on her qualification, the respondent has rejected her application. In view of the fact that the rejection is illegal, the application for appointment of petitioner could be treated as a continuation of earlier applications by the mother.
16. In yet another identical circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in
7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of either counsel and perused the materials available on record and the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.
8. In
I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner''s case deserve consideration inasmuch as he had diligently made a claim once in the year 1997 and thereafter, immediately after attaining the age of 18, in the year 2000 and in such circumstances, rejection of his application on the ground that it was not made within three years was not justified.
9. The decision of this Court in MEER ISMAIL ALI (cited supra) was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 48 of 2004 dated 01.12.2004. Subsequently, the SLP filed against it was also dismissed by the Hon''ble Apex Court vide its judgment in C.A. No. 6387 of 2004, dated 04.04.2005.
10. (a) Another Division Bench of this Court in
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a similar issue, rejecting the compassionate ground appointment on the ground that the application was submitted beyond three years and the same was rejected earlier on the ground that the petitioner therein has not completed 18 years of age, was considered by this Court in W.P. No. 1584 of 2011 and this Court held that the applications having been made within a period of three yeas and the same having not been considered on the ground that the petitioner therein was not 18 years of age at that time, the subsequent application cannot be rejected on the ground that the application was submitted within three years. The learned Judge directed the respondents not to treat the second application as an application for compassionate appointment, but it is to be treated as continuation of the application originally submitted. The said judgment is reported in
(b) In W.P. No. 21512 of 2003 one Indiraniammal challenged the rejection of compassionate appointment on similar ground. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated 4.8.2003 against which the petitioner therein filed W.A. No. 3050 of 2003 and the said writ appeal was allowed by the Division Bench (consisting of the Hon''ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam (as he then was) & S.K. Krishnan, J) by order dated 8.3.2005 following the earlier judgments as well as the Supreme Court Judgment reported in
(c) Dismissal of another W.P. No. 775 of 2004 by order dated 29.1.2005 on the ground of delay was considered by the Division Bench (F.M. Ibrahim Kalifullah, J. (as he then was) & P. Murugesan, J) in W.A. (MD). No. 29 of 2006 and by order dated 27.6.2006 the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal and directed to give compassionate appointment to the younger son of the deceased Board employee, who died on 15.11.1996. The said order of the Division Bench was also challenged by the Board in SLP(C) No. 15534 of 2007 which was also dismissed by the Apex Court on 8.4.2009.
(d) Three writ petitions were disposed of by one of us (NPVJ) i.e., W.P. Nos. 19914 of 2004, 32409 of 2004 and 10577 of 2005 by common order dated 24.7.2006 wherein similar issue was considered. In respect of the above three writ petitions, which were allowed, writ appeal was filed against one writ petition in W.A. No. 1206 of 2006 while implementing the order in respect of other two cases. The said writ appeal was allowed by the Division Bench on 29.9.2006. The respondent in the writ appeal viz., J. Karthick filed review application which was also rejected by the Division Bench on 25.8.2008. Against the dismissal of the writ appeal as well as rejection of review application, the said J. Karthick filed SLP(C) No. 2004-2005/2009 and on 23.2.2009 the SLPs were tagged along with Civil Appeal No. 2039 of 2006 viz., Indiraniammal case. Subsequently the said SLP was numbered as Civil Case Nos. 5068-5069 of 2009 which was allowed on 30.3.2010 and the said order reads as follows:
Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
These Appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 29th September, 2006 and subsequent order dated 25.8.2008 passed in the review application.
The Division Bench of the High Court has reversed the judgment of the learned single Judge only on the ground of delay who directed compassionate appointment to the appellant. The appellant was a minor at the time of the death of his father and since the mother of the appellant applied within time, we are of the opinion that the appellant after becoming major should have been granted compassionate appointment.
Accordingly, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and restore the judgment of the learned single Judge. No costs.
(Emphasis Supplied)
From the perusal of the above order it is evident that the order passed by the Division Bench in writ appeal and in the review petition were set aside and the order of the single Judge dated 29.9.2006 was restored.
(e) In W.P. No. 18575 of 2006 one of us (NPVJ) had an occasion to consider similar issue and allowed the writ petition on 20.6.2006 by following earlier orders. The said order was also challenged by the respondent in W.A. No. 42 of 2007 and the Division Bench (D. Murugesan, J & K. Venkataraman, J) dismissed the writ appeal on 2.7.2009. The Board filed SLP(C) No. 8305 of 2010 which was also dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 6.7.2010. The said candidate viz., P. Venkatesan was given compassionate appointment by order dated 18.8.2010.
(f) Again similar matter was considered by one of us (NPVJ) in W.P. No. 29059 of 2003 and relief granted by order dated 7.7.2006, against which also the Board filed W.A. No. 1652 of 2006. The said writ appeal was dismissed by Division Bench (D. Murugesan, J. & S. Nagamuthu, J.) on 30.3.2009.
11. In E. RAMASAMY''s case (supra), as argued by the learned counsel for the respondents, the Division Bench negatived the request of the writ petitioner, who was a minor when his father died in harness and who subsequently, applied for appointment on compassionate ground, however, within 3 years of his attaining majority. It is pertinent to note that this decision has been overturned by the Hon''ble Apex Court. This has been noted in
12. By relying upon various decisions of Division Bench and the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the very same issue has been dealt with elaborately by one of us (N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.) in the following cases:
1. Mohanambal v. Director, Land and Survey Department (supra).
2. J. Jeba Mary v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (supra)
3. G. Saravanakumar v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai, 2011(2) CWC 83: LNIND 2011 MAD 1961.
4. R. Prasath v. The Secretary, Labour And Employment Dept., Chennai, W.P. No. 3078 of 2006, dated 17.06.2010.
5. M. Uma v. The Chief Engineer (Personnel) Chennai, W.P. (MD) No. 4050 of 2006, dated 29.06.2010.
After analyzing the above said case laws, it was held that within 3 years of death of her husband, when the widow applied for appointment on compassionate ground, and due to bar of age etc., when she could not be appointed and the request for appointment has been followed by her son/daughter, who have then not attained majority and subsequently, applied within three years of their attaining majority, the request could be considered as continuation of their mother''s application and the application given by him/her during the minority also could be considered as continuation of such earlier application and it cannot be denied on the ground that the application has been presented beyond 3 years of death of the father. It is not the case of the respondents that the family of the appellant is not in indigent status as on today.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the learned Single Judge made in W.P. (MD) No. 13980 of 2009 dated 13.09.2010 is liable to set aside.
14. Accordingly, this writ appeal is allowed and the order of learned Single Judge dated 13.09.2010 made in W.P. (MD) No. 13980 of 2009 is set aside. The appellant herein is directed to produce a Certificate from the competent authority to the effect that his family is in indigent circumstances as on today, within four weeks and submit the same before the third respondent herein along with a copy of this Judgment. On receipt of the same, based on the representation of the appellant dated 22.12.2009, the respondents shall appoint him in any suitable post within two weeks therefrom. No costs.
17. The above judgment is squarely applicable to the present case. Admittedly, in the present case, the widow of the deceased has submitted the application within time and the application seeking appointment for the petitioner was submitted within 3 years after attaining majority. Nothing is brought before this Court to show that the family is not in indigent circumstances and this Court is of the opinion that the widow of the deceased must have appointed on compassionate grounds in some job based on her qualification. This Court is also of the view that when a person cannot be employed in government services before the completion of 18 years, he could not make an application seeking appointment during his period of minority. Therefore the period of three years for a minor son/daughter can commence only after he/she attains majority. Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, the application made on behalf of the son cannot be treated as time barred. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings of the respondent dated 31.01.2011 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to produce a certificate from the competent authority to the effect that his family is in indigent circumstance as on today, within four weeks and submit the same before second respondent and on receipt of the same, the second respondent shall pass order appointing the petitioner in any suitable post within two weeks therefrom. No costs.
