WP/37814/2024 of S.VENKATESAN Vs THE CHIEF ENGINEER (PER) on 7 October 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in Ref.Letter No.070759/G.26/G.261/2024-2, dated 18.11.2024, and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to provide a suitable appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's father joined the service of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in the year 1976. While he was in service, he died on 02.09.1992. Thereafter, the petitioner's brother, one Subramani, submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the said application was rejected on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification. In the meanwhile, the petitioner attained majority on 14.10.2000 and immediately thereafter, submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on 03.10.2001. He had also submitted the relevant records, including the No Objection Certificate given by the family members, along with the Tahsildar's Certificate. However, by virtue of the order dated 18.11.2024, the first respondent rejected the claim on the ground that the application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds had been submitted after a period of three years, which is contrary to Board Proceedings No.46.

( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 04:22:48 pm )

2026:MHC:4240 WP No. 37814 of 2024

2.1. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Chief Engineer/Personnel Vs. S.Suder, reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 3290, wherein this Court had relied upon the very same Board Proceedings No.46 and ultimately held that an application could not be rejected merely on the ground of delay of more than three years from the date of death of the employee, if the application was submitted within three years from the date of attaining majority by the beneficiary. He also relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in M.Mathiyalagan Vs. Chief Engineer, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 12487, on the same issue. Hence, he prayed to allow the present Writ Petition.

3. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents. However, on a perusal of the counter affidavit, it is seen that the respondents have referred to Board Proceedings No.46. According to the said Board Proceedings, the application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds has to be submitted within three years from the date of death of the employee. Since the petitioner had submitted the application after a lapse of almost eight years from the date of death of his father, the first respondent rejected the application, and such rejection is in accordance with the guidelines. Hence, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the present Writ Petition.

( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 04:22:48 pm )

2026:MHC:4240 WP No. 37814 of 2024

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

5. It is well-settled principle of law that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public employment. The object of compassionate appointment is primarily to provide immediate financial assistance to the dependent of the deceased employee who is left in penury on account of the sudden demise of the employee. In the case in hand, the employee died on 02.09.1992 and the application seeking compassionate appointment was submitted only in the year 2001. The present Writ Petition has been filed after a considerable lapse of time and we are now in the year 2026. Therefore, taking into consideration the date of death of the employee, almost 34 years have elapsed. Hence, even after such a long lapse of time, granting compassionate appointment on the ground of the penurious circumstances which were contemplated immediately after the death of the employee would not serve the very object of compassionate appointment and would be wholly irrational.

6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in S.Suder's case (cited supra) and the

( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 04:22:48 pm )

2026:MHC:4240 WP No. 37814 of 2024

judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in M.Mathiyalagan's case (cited supra), subsequently, in a Division Bench judgment of this Court in P.Poongodi Vs. Chairman reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 29093, this Court has categorically held that compassionate appointment has to be granted strictly in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the respective Department. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that, as per Board Proceedings No.46, an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds has to be submitted within a period of three years. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the application was submitted after a period of eight years from the date of death of the employee. Further, by the time the present Writ Petition came to be filed, considerable time had elapsed. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the present Writ Petition.

7. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KV

( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 04:22:48 pm )

2026:MHC:4240 WP No. 37814 of 2024

To

1. The Chief Engineer (Per), 144, Anna Salai, TANGEDCO, Chennai 600 002.

2. The Superintending Engineer, CEDC/South / TANGEDCO, K.K. Nagar, Chennai 600 078.

( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 04:22:48 pm )

2026:MHC:4240 WP No. 37814 of 2024

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV WP No. 37814 of 2024 07-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 04:22:48 pm )