C. L KAAVIYA Vs. CHAIRMAN, TNEB OFFICE, NPKRR MAALIGAI, 144, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI
LAWS(MAD)-2020-2-557
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on February 28,2020

C. L Kaaviya Appellant
VERSUS
Chairman, Tneb Office, Npkrr Maaligai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.GOVINDARAJ,J. - (1.) The petitioners' father, while in service as a Junior Engineer with respondent Electricity Board, died on 19.09.2007. After his death name of the petitioner was sponsored by Employment exchange to the respondent for the post of Technical Assistant. Eventhough she attended the interview on 07.07.2009, she was not selected. However she requested the respondents to consider her on compassionate basis to the said post, but, her request was not accepted by the respondents on the ground that compassionate appointment cannot be made to higher posts. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation on 01.07.2010 for appointment under compassionate ground, but, no action was taken by the respondents. Thereafter, she submitted further representations on 12.08.2011 and 31.08.2011 respectively. However, by the impugned letter, the 4th respondent herein has returned the application made by the petitioner on the ground it has been made beyond the limitation period of three years. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that as per the Scheme in force, appointment under compassionate ground can be considered only for Class IV posts provided the applicant submits his / her application within a period of three years from the date of death of the employee. Even though it is stated by the petitioner that she submitted her application as early as on 01.07.2010, nothing has been found in the records of the respondents as claimed by her. The petitioner also filed proof of service for the representation being sent on 01.07.2010, however, the representation was actually sent on 31.08.2011, which is beyond the limitation period of three years and therefore, it was rightly rejected. This Court in its various judgments has clearly held that the candidates do not have any vested right to get appointment under compassionate ground, but however, they will be entitled to be considered for employment. In the present case, the petitioner has not approached the respondents in time and therefore, her claim cannot be considered at this distance of time. Therefore, she seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.
(3.) I have considered the rival submissions.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.