Compensate ground_tneb
praveen kumar
(Querist) 18 February 2014
This query is : Resolved
hello sir, my name is praveen kumar. my father moorthy(late) worked as field assistant in TNEB for 11 years permanent employee. he was died in 21-2-2007. my mother suja also deceased on24-8-2004. my date of birth is 25-11-1993.
i tried to request for my fathers job. but at the time i was 14 years old. i completed 10th std. they rejected for age qualification. after 18 i gave letter to TNEB but three years validity for a employee son compensate ground. for it takes 4 years they rejected again. now i completed diploma eee with 90%. i have one younger brother. we don't have any support to live in that that cse shall we again give a letter to chairmen of elctricity board. actually i gave the letter within three years but due to age qualification they rejected. in that case shall i again give letter to chairmen of electricity board?
ajay sethi
(Expert) 18 February 2014
it is at the discretion of TNEB to grant you job on compassionate grounds . application has to be made within period of 3 years . Dependants of employees of the Board who die in harness are eligible for employment assistance under the Board. This is subject to various conditions including that the family is in indigent circumstances and that the applicant is fully qualified for the post in question
you can if you so desire move HC for reliefs
ajay sethi
(Expert) 18 February 2014
Madras High Court
S.Karthikeyan vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 13 March, 2013
DATED: 13.03.2013
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR
W.P.No.2625 of 2007
S.Karthikeyan .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Rep. by its Chairman
VIII Floor, No.800
K.R.R.Maligai
Anna Salai, Chennai-2
2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
VIII Floor, No.800
K.R.R.Maligai, Anna Salai
Chennai-2
3.The Superintending Engineer
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Office of the Superintending Engineer
CEDC/Cuddalore .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned order/letter bearing No.173/Nir.2/Udavi/4/Ko.vave/05 dated 18.03.2005 of the third respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to consider the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ramesh
For Respondents : Mr.Fakkir Mohideen
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed impugning the order of the third respondent made in proceedings No.173/Nir.2/Udavi/4/Ko.vave/05 dated 18.03.2005 rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner is the son of one Sarangapani, who worked as Wireman in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (in short TNEB) and retired on the ground of medical invalidation on 12.01.1999. The petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that he did not apply for compassionate appointment within the period of three years from the date of his father's retirement on medical invalidation.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner made in the writ petition that he had applied as early as on 21.03.2001 seeking compassionate appointment, which was very much within three years from the date of retirement of his father on medical invalidation, but the impugned order came to be passed erroneously on the assumption that he applied for appointment on compassionate grounds after a lapse of three years.
3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that though the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds was extended to the dependents of the employees retiring on medical invalidation by Board proceedings B.P.Ms.(FB) No.51 dated 31.05.1984, a condition was imposed to the effect that the benefits were available to the dependents of the employees of the Board, who retired from service on medical invalidation before attaining the age of 50 years; that the other conditions regarding appointment on compassionate grounds applicable to the dependents of the employees dying in harness were also made applicable in case of dependents of the employees retiring on medical invalidation; that as per Board proceedings B.P.Ms.(FB) No.46 dated 13.10.1995, the time limit of three years had been fixed for the submission of the application for appointment on compassionate grounds; that since the petitioner failed to apply seeking appointment on compassionate grounds within three years from the date of retirement of his father on medical invalidation, his application was rightly rejected and that hence the writ petition should be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had submitted a representation in writing on 21.03.2001 itself seeking appointment on compassionate grounds and hence the rejection of the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground of belatedness was improper, as the impugned order came to be passed in ignorance of the representation submitted by the petitioner on 21.03.2001, which was well within the period of three years from the date of retirement of his father on medical invalidation. In support of his contention, a copy of a letter dated 21.03.2001 addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and a copy of the acknowledgment showing the receipt of the same in the office of the Chief Minister have been produced. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out a note appended in page 2 of the said representation to the effect that copies were marked to the District Collector, Cuddalore and Superintending Engineer, TNEB, Cuddalore. It is true that there is such a notice found in the copy of the said representation was sent to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and the acknowledgment card also evidences proof of receipt of the same in the office of the Chief Minister. But there is nothing to show that a copy was sent to the Superintending Engineer, TNEB. No acknowledgment card in proof of service of a copy of the said representation on the Superintending Engineer, TNEB, Cuddalore has been produced. Therefore, we have to accept the contention of the learned standing counsel for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board that no such representation was received from the petitioner; that the petitioner submitted the proper application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds only on 31.01.2005 and that hence the rejection of the application on the ground that the same was not submitted within three years was proper.
5. A perusal of the documents produced by the petitioner will show that the petitioner chose to send a representation to the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 21.03.2001 seeking financial aid and also incidentally seeking appointment on compassionate grounds to any one of the members of his family. It is obvious from the contents of the said representation sent to the Hon'ble Chief Minister that the petitioner did not ask for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the Board proceedings and the scheme applicable to the TNEB employees regarding appointment on compassionate grounds. On the other hand, he had chosen to ask for the exercise of the powers of the Chief Minister as such for providing out of turn employment to any one of the members of his family. The same was done by the petitioner because, he was aware of the fact that as per the then prevailing scheme, only the dependents of employees of the Board retiring on medical invalidation before attaining the age of 50 years were entitled to seek appointment on compassionate grounds. This has been specifically referred to by the petitioner himself in the above mentioned representation dated 21.03.2001 submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Minister. The said particulars found in the above said representation will show that the petitioner was very much aware of the then existing rule that the Board employee should not have attained the age of 50 years at the time of his retirement on medical invalidation for giving appointment to one of his dependents on compassionate grounds. The same was the reason why the petitioner did not submit the application to the competent authority seeking appointment on compassionate grounds before 31.01.2005.
6. The learned standing counsel for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board drew the attention of the court to Board proceedings B.P.Ms.(F.B.) No.46 (Administrative Branch) dated 13.10.1995 and contended that time limit of three years has been prescribed for submission of the application for appointment on compassionate grounds and that since the petitioner's application was beyond the period of three years from the date of retirement of his father on medical invalidation, the rejection of his application was proper. It is an admitted fact that originally the scheme of compassionate appointment was made applicable for appointing dependents of Board employees dying in harness by B.P.Ms.(CH.) No.411 dated 22.07.1983. The said benefit conferred on the dependents of the employees dying harness, was extended to the dependents of the employees retiring on medical invalidation, subject to a condition that such retirement should be before attaining the age of 50 years as per Board proceedings B.P.Ms.(F.B.) No.51 dated 31.05.1984. Thereafter to check applications being made belatedly seeking compassionate appointments, Board proceedings B.P.Ms.(F.B.) No.46 (Administrative Branch) dated 13.10.1995 came to be issued. Though it was issued in respect of compassionate appointments to the dependents of the employees dying in harness, by the fact that the said scheme was made applicable to the dependents of the employees retiring on medical invalidation only with an additional condition that such retirement should be before attaining the age of 50 years, the condition prescribing the period within which the application seeking compassionate appointment is to be made as found in B.P.No.46 is also applicable to the dependents of employees retiring on medical invalidation. A period of three years has been fixed as per the above said BP for submission of the application seeking compassionate appointment. In case of the dependents of employees retiring on medical invalidation, the application seeking appointment on compassionate ground should be made within three years from the date of such retirement.
7. Of course the application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the same was not submitted within three years from the date of retirement of his father on medical invalidation. Besides contending that such a reason for the rejection of the application was in accordance with the rules, the learned standing counsel for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board representing the respondents, would also contend that such a rejection can be justified on the ground that neither the petitioner nor any other dependent of the petitioner's father, was eligible to seek appointment on compassionate grounds, since the father of the petitioner retired on medical invalidation after he had attained the age of 50 years. In support of his contention, the learned standing counsel for the TNEB drew the attention of the court to the Board proceedings in B.P.Ms.(FB) No.51 (Administrative Branch) dated 31.05.1984. A copy of the said Board proceedings has also been produced for the perusal of the court. The contents of the said Board proceedings are extracted here under: Proceedings :-
" Dependants of employees of the Board who die in harness are eligible for employment assistance under the Board. This is subject to various conditions including that the family is in indigent circumstances and that the applicant is fully qualified for the post in question. It has been represented that this concession may be extended also to dependants of those employees of the Board who retire on invalidation on medical grounds. This has not been agreed so far. This is particularly because of the possibility that some employees may get themselves retired on medical invalidation with a view to take up other types of employment since openings for such employment are widely available for persons experienced in the work of the Electricity Board and such persons may also get the undeserved benefit of having their dependants employed in the Board.
2. On further representations, the matter has now been re-examined. It is felt that while extreme care and caution have to be exercised to guard against any possible abuse of this concession, genuine cases where the employees has been left with no alternative but to seek voluntary retirement on major grounds of incapcacity deserve to be viewed with sympathy. Accordingly, it has been decided that while there is no need to frame a general scheme as in the case of employment of dependants of deceased employees, cases of dependants of employees retired on medical grounds may be considered on merits and provision of employment to the dependants considered in exceptional cases.
3. The procedure for submission and scrutiny of applications from dependants of deceased employees prescribed in B.P.Ms.(CH) No.411 Administrative Branch dated 22-7-83 will apply to the above cases also subject to the modification that the enquiry shall be conducted personallyto an officer not below the rank of a Divisional Engineer. He should particularly take care to visit the invalidated employee and make sure that it is a genuine case where he has been totally disabled so as to deprive him of his earning capacity.
4. The other conditions as in the scheme for provision of employment to dependents of ceased employees will apply to this case also especially that the family is in indigent circumstances, the applicant possesses the qualification for the post in question etc. This concession is subject to the further condition that the employee should have retired from service on medical grounds before attaining the age of fifty years.
5. Orders will be passed by the Full Board on each case."
8. Relying on clause 4 of the said Board proceedings, the learned standing counsel for the TNEB representing the respondents contended that as per the then prevailing scheme, the petitioner was not eligible to seek appointment on compassionate grounds since his father retired on medical invalidation after he had attained the age of 50 years. A reading of the above said Board proceedings will also show that such a condition was imposed in order to prevent the employees of the Board from opting for retirement on medical invalidation at the verge of retirement and seek appointment to one of his dependents on compassionate grounds and thereafter take up a job outside the Electricity Board with the help of his vast experience gained while serving in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Only in order to achieve the above said objective, the age limit came to be fixed.
9. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that his father had completed the age of 50 years on 12.01.1999, when he was retired on the ground on medical invalidation. In fact, in the application seeking compassionate appointment itself, the petitioner furnished the date of birth of his father as 03.06.1947. Therefore, it is crystal clear that on 12.01.1999, when Sarangapani, the father of the petitioner was retired on medical invalidation, he had completed the age of 51 years. As per the then prevailing rule, his dependents were not entitled to seek appointment on compassionate grounds.
10. However, learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the court to Board proceedings B.P.(FB) No.25 (Administrative Branch) dated 09.10.2001, whereby the age criterion in respect of the employees of the Board retiring on medical invalidation was raised from 50 years to 53 years for the purpose of providing employment assistance to the dependents of such employees on compassionate grounds. A copy of the said Board proceedings has also been produced for the perusal of the court. The contents of the said Board proceedings are extracted here under: Proceedings:-
" In B.P.Ms.(F.B.) No.51 (Admn. Branch), dated 31.5.1984, the Board had approved the concession in regard to providing employment opportunities to the dependents of the employees of the Board, who have retired from service on medical grounds before attaining the age of 50 years, based on the Government G.O.Ms.No.1025 (Labour and Employment), dated 22.11.1976 and in Letter No.22247/N1/82-4 dated 23.11.1982.
2. Now, the Government in its G.O.Ms.No.168 (Labour and Employment) (Q1) Department, dated 19.10.2000 have extended the restriction of age of the employees on medical invalidation from 50 years to 53 years for providing employment assistance to their dependents.
3. The Board has decided to adopt the orders of the Government. Accordingly, it is ordered that the employment assitance to the dependents of the employees of the Board who retire on medical grounds are considered subject to the condition that the employee should have retired from service on medical grounds before attaining the age of 53 years.
4. The other conditions stipulated under this scheme remain the same.
5. This concession is given effect to from the date from which the Government have extended the benefit (i.e.) from 19.10.2000."
The age barrier was raised from 50 years to 53 years. But such a change in the scheme was given only a limited retrospective effect by clause 5 of the above said Board proceedings. As per clause 5, the concession extended by the said Board proceedings was given effect to from 19.10.2000, the date from which the Government have extended the benefit to the government servants. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned standing counsel for TNEB, the said amendment will be applicable only in cases of retirement on medical invalidation on or after 19.10.2000.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to contend that the cut off date mentioned in Board proceedings B.P.(FB) No.25 dated 09.10.2001 would mean the date of consideration of the request for compassionate appointment and not the date of retirement of the Board employee on medical invalidation. The said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is against the law and spirit of the Board proceedings and hence the same deserves rejection.
12. The learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board contended further that, even if it is assumed that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of B.P.(FB) No.25 dated 09.10.2001, since the petitioner did not apply for appointment on compassionate grounds within three years from the date of his father's retirement on medical invalidation and not even within three years from the date of passing of the above said Board proceedings, the rejection of the petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate grounds deserved no interference.
13. In this regard, the attempt made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that application seeking compassionate appointment was made as early as on 21.03.2001 cannot be accepted for the reasons indicated supra. At the cost of repetition, it is pointed out that in the representation dated 21.03.2001 made to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, the petitioner had not sought for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the scheme applicable to the TNEB. The said representation itself reveals the knowledge of the petitioner that in accordance with the then prevailing scheme the dependents of Sarangapani were not entitled to seek appointment on compassionate grounds. It should also be noticed that the age relaxation relaxing the age from 50 to 53 years came to be made on 09.10.2001 with retrospective effect from 19.10.2000 as per B.P.(FB) No.25. Before passing of the said proceedings, the representation to the Hon'ble Chief Minister came to be made. Therefore, the said representation can, at no stretch of imagination, be construed to be an application made in accordance with the Board proceedings and the scheme applicable to the TNEB. That is the reason why the petitioner chose to submit a proper application on 31.01.2005 seeking compassionate appointment. The said application came to be made not only after three years from the date of retirement of his father on medical invalidation, but also beyond three years from the date from which the amendment was brought into effect and also beyond three years from the date of Board proceedings B.P.(F.B.) No.25 bringing about an amendment in the age criterion.
14. Viewed from any angle, it shall be obvious that the petitioner had not submitted his application seeking compassionate appointment within the time limit stipulated in the rules. Therefore, the rejection of the application of the writ petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds was made on valid grounds. The challenge made to the impugned order is not sustainable and the Writ Petition deserves dismissal, as there is no merit in it.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost.
13.03.2013
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
asr/
To
1.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Rep. by its Chairman
VIII Floor, No.800
K.R.R.Maligai
Anna Salai, Chennai-2
2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
VIII Floor, No.800
K.R.R.Maligai, Anna Salai
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 18 February 2014
Well advised by the expert ajay sethi ji.
You may once again try with the chairman. May personally meet.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 18 February 2014
The difficulty is that such appointments can not be claimed as a matter of any substantive right but you were not illegible
due to minority then shall or shall not courts would consider it as incapacity at then to suspense time run of 03 years is the only thing you can agitate by a writ without
moving to board a fresh when you have moved to them two times, first during minority and next after attaining majority.
Guest
(Expert) 18 February 2014
You approach the Board once again seeking the appointment explaining all your family difficulties and plead them for appointment on Sympathy.You could also get your self recommended by leaders of strong Unions.
Rajeev Kumar
(Expert) 18 February 2014
I agree with the views of Ajay and Prabhakar sir. Better to file writ petition in HC.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 19 February 2014
I do not favour filing WP.
In this case the death is 7 years old and practically claim is lost due to one reason or the other.
when you case was rejected then you should have moved to court at that time itself.
now you have got good career and wish this benefit to be shifted to your brother.
Compassionate job is not an undated cheque or buried treasure.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 19 February 2014
I agree with Mr. Sudhir Kumar's views on the issue. Right to employment on compassionate grounds does not hold any legal stand. Try once again by another application directly to the Chairman and wait fr your luck to answer your fate.
