W.P.(MD)No.17985 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 31.07.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.(MD)No.17985 of 2024
R.Saravanakumari ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
TANGEDCO, No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 2.
2.The Chief Engineer (Distribution)
TANGEDCO, Tirunelveli Division,
Maharaja Nagar, Tirunelveli - 627 011.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO, Virudhunagar Division,
Virudhunagar. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned order in Ka.No.1366/156/Ne.A/Ne.P.
2/Uthavi31/Ko.Varisu Vellai/2024 dated 19.03.2024 passed by the third
respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds to any
entry level post as per G.O.Ms.No.33, Labour Welfare and Skill
Development (Q1) Department, dated 08.03.2023.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17985 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Yamuna
For Respondents : Mr.S.Arivalagan
Standing Counsel
O R D E R
Heard Mr.R.Yamuna, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.S.Arivalagan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash the
impugned order of the third respondent in Ka.No.1366/156/Ne.A/Ne.P.
2/Uthavi.1/Ko.Varisu Vellai/2024 dated 19.03.2024, which rejected her
application for compassionate appointment filed in pursuant to the death
of her father who worked as a Field Worker in the third respondent Office
and died on 01.12.1999 while in service.
3. Ms.R.Yamuna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that despite an application has been submitted on behalf of the
petitioner within three years from the date of death of her father, the
impugned order has been passed as though the application has been filed
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17985 of 2024
beyond the period of three years.
4. The attention was drawn to the copy of the applications dated
06.03.2001 and 05.06.2002 in support of the petitioner's claim that
applications have been submitted within a period of three years. But, the
fact remains that the petitioner's mother had given an application seeking
compassionate appointment for herself in the year 2003 and the same was
rejected stating that the petitioner's mother did not have required
qualification.
5. The petitioner's mother has stated that she had filed other
applications even prior to the year 2003. If so, the petitioner's mother's
earlier applications would have been considered instead of considering
her application dated 20.02.2003. The copies furnished by the petitioner
alleging that her mother had given applications in the years 2001 and
2002 seeking compassionate appointment for her are without any
authenticity. In view of the earlier rejection order, it cannot be claimed
that the application has been given within three years time. In fact, the
3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17985 of 2024
petitioner was a minor during the years 2001 & 2002 when her mother
was said to have given applications.
6. However, after attaining majority, the petitioner has given an
application on 13.08.2013 and that has also been rejected. At the time
when the petitioner's father died, he left his wife and three daughters as
his legal heirs. The petitioner's mother was just aged 28 years old and her
three daughter were minors. But for the reasons best known to the
respondents, the application of the petitioner's mother has been simply
rejected stating that the petitioner' mother did not have required
educational qualification. However, the petitioner's mother had not
chosen to challenge the above order. But, she had stated that she bas been
continuously giving applications seeking appointment for her daughter
who is the petitioner herein. The petitioner has become a major and she
has also given an application seeking compassionate appointment.
7. Since the applications have been rejected without taking into
consideration of the indigent circumstances of the petitioner's family at
4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17985 of 2024
the time when the petitioner's father died, the impugned order is liable to
be set aside and the matter is remitted back to the third respondent to re-
consider and pass orders without standing on the technicalities of the
delay in filing the applications, but to consider the integrated
circumstances and pass appropriate orders.
8. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is
disposed of and the impugned order of the third respondent in Ka.No.
1366/156/Ne.A/Ne.P.2/Uthavi.1/Ko.Varisu Vellai/2024 dated 19.03.2024
is set aside. The third respondent is directed to re-consider the
application of the petitioner dated 13.08.2013, based on integrated
circumstances and without standing on technicalities and pass appropriate
order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. No costs
31.07.2024
NCC: Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
mbi
5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17985 of 2024
To
1.The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
TANGEDCO
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 2.
2.The Chief Engineer (Distribution)
TANGEDCO
Tirunelveli Division,
Maharaja Nagar,
Tirunelveli - 627 011.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Virudhunagar Division,
Virudhunagar.
6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17985 of 2024
R.N.MANJULA, J.
mbi
W.P.(MD)No.17985 of 2024
31.07.2024
7/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis