AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Dinakaran, J.—Even though the Petitioner''s father Thiru Ramalingam died in the year 1981 by electrocution, while he was in service in
the Respondent Board, the Petitioner applied for a suitable job on compassionate ground only in the year 1992. By proceedings dated 3.8.1992,
the Respondent rejected the request of the Petitioner on the ground that there is no suitable vacancy for the Petitioner as he has not even passed
sixth standard while the minimum qualification even for the post of helper is a pass in Secondary School Leaving Certificate, as per the Regulation
91(1) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations. Hence, the Petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondent to
provide employment to him as helper or any other employment in the third Respondent circle.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent brought to my notice the decision dated 25.1.1999 made in W.P. No. 14134 of 1991, wherein P.
Sathasivam, J, following the decision of the Apex Court in State of U.P. and Others Vs. Paras Nath, and Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs.
Bhagwan Singh, , rejected the request for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that the appointment on compassionate ground is
intended only to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased employee and to help the family in distress.
In State of U.P. and Others Vs. Paras Nath, , the Apex Court has held as follows:
The purpose of providing employment to a dependant of a Government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the
hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such
appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointment. The purpose is to provide
immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased Government servant. Non of these considerations can operate when the application is
made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the pressent case.
Similarly in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Bhagwan Singh, , the Apex Court had held as follows:
The reason for making compassionate appointment which is exceptional, is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a Government
servant who dies in harness, when there is no other earning member in the family.
No such consideration would normally operate seventeen years after the death of the Government servant. The High Court was, therefore, not
right in granting any relief to the Respondents.
Similar W.P. No. 11922 of 2000 was also dismissed by me by order dated 18.7.2000 which reads as follows:
Admittedly, the Petitioner''s father died in an alleged fatal accident on 17.11.1969, almost 31 years back. However the Petitioner who is now aged
about 41 years seeks an employment on compassionate ground. It appears that the Petitioner has made an application on 16.7.1982, but the same
was rejected by the Respondent Board on the ground that his brother is already employed in Integral Coach Factory. Thereafter, the Petitioner
again applied on 3.11.1993, to which the Respondent Board by proceedings dated 26.7.1999, replied to the Petitioner that the case of the
Petitioner was once rejected and therefore the same cannot be re-opened. Hence the Petitioner seeks for the issue of a writ of Mandamus
directing the Respondents to issue an appointment order to the Petitioner under compassionate ground based on his application dated 16.7.1982
and enquiry dated 20.12.1997.
Employment assistance to the dependant of a deceased employee who dies while in service as well as to the dependant of an invalidated
employee on medical ground, in my considered opinion, is intended only to protect and safeguard the interest of the dependants of the deceased
employee immediately after his death by providing employment to one of the dependants in the family of the deceased employee or the invalidated
employee on medical ground. Such a concession cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the Petitioner after a period of 31 years of the death of
his father, inspite of the rejection of his request by the Respondent Board, as early as 1982. If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the said refusal of the
Respondent Board, to consider his case, he should have moved the Court immediately after the rejection of his request by the Respondent Board,
for appropriate relief.
As no good and sufficient reasons are placed by the Petitioner before this Court explaining the laces on his part in seeking the relief as prayed
for, the above writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Again, recently the Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar v. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2000 (6) ST 43, held that there cannot be any
reservation of vacancy till such time the claimant becomes major after number of years. Unless there is some specific provisions in the service
regulations.
In the instant case, there is no dispute that the Petitioner''s father died in 1981 and the Petitioner had not qualified himself till 1992 when he
applied, without even possessing the minimum qualification, which was rightly rejected by the Respondent Board, by proceedings dated 3.8.1992
referred to above.
Finding no merits, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.