(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the third respondent in Letter No.26125/567/ENIU/Nip.3/Ko.Varisu.Velai.2013 dated Ni.01.2013 and quash the same and direct the respondents to provide suitable employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground.)

1. The father of the petitioner was employed in TANGEDCO. He died on 05.01.1990 while in service. According to the petitioner, her mother made representation on 12.07.1991 to the 4th respondent requesting compassionate appointment. However, she was informed that she did not have the minimum required qualification for compassionate appointment and hence, her application was not forwarded to the third respondent. Even thereafter, the petitioners mother made several representations. Since there was no response, the petitioner made representation to the third respondent on 20.05.2009 requesting for compassionate appointment.

2. According to the petitioner, again on 06.12.2012, the petitioners mother submitted application to the 2nd respondent, seeking compassionate appointment to the petitioner and the second respondent directed the third respondent to take necessary action on the representation as per existing rules. But the third respondent, by letter dated Nil.01.2013 rejected the application that she has not fulfilled the following conditions:-

a) Application should be submitted in format within three years from the date of death of the board employee;

b) The dependent of the deceased should have completed 18 years within three years from the date of death and

c) If widow claims application, she shall not be more than 50 years of age.

Hence, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance on B.P.No.17 Administrative Branch, dated 01.11.2011. According to him, in view of B.P.No.17, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. It is submitted that based on the said B.P., similarly situated persons like the petitioners were given compassionate appointment. Hence, the same yardstick shall be followed in his case. In this regard, he has relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in(2013) (3) LLN 736 (DB) (Mad.) [The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and others v. N.Elavarasan].

5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel sought to sustain the impugned order. According to him, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and this Court need not interfere with the same.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

7. The respondent Board has issued a proceedings in B.P.No.17, Administrative Branch, dated 01.11.2011 stating that any rejection for compassionate appointment before 23.08.2005 on the ground that the application was made beyond three years and the applicant did not attain the age of 18 years within three years from the date of death of employee, the same could be reviewed and appointment could be given. The said proceedings in B.P.No.17 Administrative Branch, dated 01.11.2011 is extracted hereunder:

(TAMIL)

8. According to the petitioner, in view of the aforesaid B.P.No.17, the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment.

9. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in THE CHIEF ENGINEER, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS VS. N. ELAVARASAN [2013 (3) LLN 736 (DB) (Mad.)] confirmed the order of the learned single Judge providing compassionate appointment to the writ petitioner therein. Paras 3, 12 and 13 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:

"3. Facts in brief :

i) On 16.06.1997, respondents father died in harness. On 18.11.1997, his widow sought for appointment on compassionate ground. Then she was 45 years old. Thereafter, there were many clarifications and returns by TNEB and they were also responded to by her. As per the Boards Standing Orders, appointment on compassionate ground could be given up to 50 years of age. By April, 2004 she was about to cross her 53 years. Then, she sought job for her son/writ petitioner. She was informed by the officials that since her son was below 18 years, he cannot be appointed. However, she pursued it stating that within few months he is to attain his majority.

ii) On 19.07.2006, few days after attaining 18 years, the writ petitioner applied for appointment enclosing his mothers no objection. On 20.03.2007, also he reiterated his request submitting another application. But, no response. In the circumstances, he filed W.P.(MD).No.3887 of 2007 for issuance of Mandamus. On 24.04.2007, this Court directed TNEB to consider his representation dated 20.03.2007 and pass orders within 8 weeks. On 20.06.2007, second respondent passed orders based on Boards Standing order No.46(Ni.Ni.), dated 13.10.1995, rejecting the request of the widow as she is above 50 years and also her sons request as he had applied 3 years after his fathers death.

12. The very same issue has been dealt with elaborately by one of us (N.Paul Vasanthakumar, J.) in the following cases, wherein, my learned Brother relied on Division Bench decisions and also the decisions of the Honble Apex Court.

1. MOHANAMBAL V. DIRECTOR, LAND AND SURVEY DEPARTMENT [2011 (2) MLJ 47 [LQ/MadHC/2010/6729] ]

2. J.JEBA MARY V. THE CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD [2011 (3) LLN 405]

3. G.SARAVANAKUMAR VS. THE CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHENNAI [2011 (2) CWC 83]

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)

13. My learned Brother in his said decisions reviewed the case-laws on the point and 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 mothers 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."

10. In view of the aforesaid judgment and more particularly B.P.No.17, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the third respondent is directed to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner, in the light of B.P.No.17 and the judgment referred to above, if she is otherwise eligible, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.