- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
T. Meer Ismail Ali P... v. The Tamil Nadu Elect...
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner sought compassionate appointment following the death of his father, an Accounting Supervisor in the Electricity Board, who died suddenly in service on 13.04.1993. The petitioner initially applied for compassionate appointment on 05.08.1997, but the application was rejected because he had not completed 18 years of age. After attaining 18 years and acquiring a Diploma in Electrical and Electronic Engineering, the petitioner reapplied on 04.07.2000. This second application was rejected by the respondent Board on the ground that it was belated, not filed within three years from the date of the death of the father, as per Permanent B.P.Ms. (FB) No.46, Full Board dated 13.10.1995. The petitioner challenged these rejections, seeking to quash the proceedings dated 18.07.2000 and 14.12.2000.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment could be rejected on the ground of delay beyond the three-year period stipulated by Permanent B.P.Ms. (FB) No.46, considering the petitioner had not attained 18 years of age earlier.
- Whether the respondent Board was justified in refusing to consider the merits of the petitioner’s application despite his circumstances and diligence.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent's Arguments
- The respondent relied on a judgment dated 10.10.2002 in W.P.No.35155 of 2002, which emphasized that compassionate appointment aims to provide immediate relief to the dependents of a deceased employee who died in harness.
- It was argued that applications made long after the death of the employee, such as 17 or 31 years later, cannot serve the intended purpose and hence should not be considered.
- The respondent maintained that the petitioner’s application was barred as it was not filed within the prescribed three-year period following the issuance of B.P.No.46 dated 13.10.1995.
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner contended that his initial application was rejected solely because he had not attained 18 years of age, and therefore he was diligent in applying at the earliest possible time.
- After attaining 18 years and qualifying with a Diploma, the petitioner reapplied promptly, and the respondent should have considered the application on its merits.
- The petitioner highlighted his family circumstances, including a mentally retarded sister, making him the sole breadwinner, thereby deserving compassionate consideration.
- The petitioner argued that the rejection on a hyper-technical ground without compassion was unjustified.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Judgment dated 10.10.2002 in W.P.No.35155 of 2002 | Compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to dependents of a deceased employee who died in harness; applications made long after death defeat this purpose. | The court distinguished this precedent by noting that the petitioner’s delay was not comparable to delays of 17 or 31 years and thus did not apply directly to the facts of this case. |
| Permanent B.P.Ms. (FB) No.46, Full Board dated 13.10.1995 | Application for compassionate appointment must be made within three years from the date of the death of the employee. | The court held that strict application of this rule was not justified when the petitioner was underage and had applied at the earliest opportunity after attaining majority. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court recognized that the petitioner was underage at the time of his father's death and that his initial application was rejected solely on that basis. The petitioner demonstrated diligence by applying as soon as he attained 18 years and acquired relevant qualifications. The court found that the rigid application of the three-year limitation period under Permanent B.P.Ms. (FB) No.46 was inappropriate in these circumstances. The court emphasized the purpose of compassionate appointment—to provide relief to dependents—and noted the petitioner’s special family circumstances, including being the sole breadwinner due to a mentally retarded sister. The rejection on hyper-technical grounds without consideration of merits was deemed unjust. The court distinguished prior judgments concerning much longer delays, holding that those were not applicable to the petitioner’s case.
Holding and Implications
The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned orders dated 18.07.2000 and 14.12.2000. The respondent Board was directed to consider the petitioner’s application on its merits and provide relief in accordance with the rules relating to compassionate appointment.
This decision directly benefits the petitioner by mandating reconsideration of the application without being barred by the three-year limitation period due to his minority at the time of death. The opinion does not establish a broader precedent beyond the facts of this case.
1. The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings of the respondent Board dated 18.07.2000 and 14.12.2000, in and by which the respondent rejected the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on the footing that his application was belated in point of time and in the light of Permanent B.P.Ms. (FB) No.46, Full Board dated 13.10.1995, the application should have been filed within three years from the date of the death of the father.
2. The petitioner's father was employed in the Electricity Board as Accounting Supervisor in the Aruppukkottai Revenue Unit of Kamarajar Electricity Distribution Circle, now known as Virudhunagar Distribution Circle. He met with a sudden death on 13.04.1993 due to cardiac arrest while in service, leaving behind his wife, three daughters and the petitioner. When the petitioner made an application earlier for compassionate appointment on 05.08.1997, the same was rejected by the respondent-Board stating that he had not completed 18 years of age and therefore his application cannot be considered. Subsequently, the petitioner is said to have acquired a Diploma in Electrical and Electronic Engineering and after completing 18 years of age in 2000, he made an application for compassionate appointment on 04.07.2000. The said application was also rejected by the respondent Board stating that the application was not made within three years from the date when B.P.No.46 dated 13.10.1995 came to be issued.
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner completed 18 years of age only in the year 2000. When the petitioner's earlier application was rejected on the ground that he did not complete 18 years of age, it cannot be held that the petitioner was not diligent in seeking for compassionate appointment at the earliest point of time. In fact, immediately after attaining 18 years of age and also after qualifying himself, when the petitioner came forward with the present application on 04.07.2000, in all fairness, the respondent should have considered the petitioner's claim on merits. In fact in the application, the petitioner would claim that one of his sisters is mentally retarded and therefore, he is the only breadwinner of the family.
4. In such circumstances, it was a deserving case where the respondent should have shown some compassion while considering the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment. Unfortunately, the respondent did not seem to have shown any compassion at all and mercilessly rejected the petitioner's application on a hyper technical ground.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment dated 10.10.2002 passed in W.P.No.35155 of 2002 holding that the very purport of providing compassionate appointment was to provide employment assistance to the dependents of the deceased employee who died in harness and thereby provide immediate relief to the family from undergoing any financial sufferings. It was held therein that when the application was made after 31 years after the death of the father, there was no scope to consider the application for compassionate appointment, as the same would not serve the purpose for which it was intended. In fact, the judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this Court referred to in the said judgment were also in respect of cases where applications for compassionate appointments appear to have been made after 17 years and 31 years respectively, after the death of the employees concerned. Therefore, what is stated in those cases can have no application to the facts in this case.
6. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner's case deserves 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.
7. The orders impugned are, therefore, set aside and the respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's application on merits and provide necessary relief to the petitioner in accordance with the rules relating to compassionate appointment. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.
Alert