WP/9054/2022 of M.Sowndhararajan Vs The Chairman cum Managing Director on 10 September 2026

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.04.2021 by and in which the petitioner’s appointment on compassionate ground was rejected.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s father was relieved from service on medical invalidation vide order dated 22.11.2011. Within three years, the petitioner has submitted the application for compassionate appointment on 12.11.2014. Since the said application was rejected on the ground that he was a minor, he has given another application on 05.10.2017. Even the second application was also rejected on the ground that the second application was submitted after a period of three years. It is the specific submission of the petitioner that as per the Board proceedings, whether the petitioner is minor or not is relevant for giving application. However, for giving an appointment, he must have attained the majority. In the case in hand, though the earlier application was rejected on the ground that he did not attain majority, the subsequent application for compassionate appointment was given after attaining majority. But, it’s rejection on the ground of limitation is erroneous, as his original application is dated 12.11.2014 is well within limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the Board Proceedings dated 12.02.2025, wherein it refers that the minimum age is not a criteria to submit the application and the criteria to be considered only at the time of appointing the person. Hence, prayed to interfere with the impugned order.

4. The said contention was stoutly objected by the learned Standing Counsel and would contend that on the date of filing of the first application, the petitioner was minor and thereafter, when he submitted the second application, it is beyond three years. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to have a compassionate appointment. Hence, prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6. On 07.09.2026, this Court has passed the following order:-

“The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that according to the BP 3 dated 12.02.2025, there is no minimum age limit for submitting an application and the requirements of attaining majority is only relevant at the time of appointment. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even in the past, there is no minimum age limit provided to submit an application, whereas in the case in hand, though the petitioner was 14 years old at the time of submitting the application, the rejection order was made after the petitioner attaining majority on the ground that the petitioner’s application is a belated one, which is factually incorrect as the application was submitted within a period of three years from the date of medical invalidation of the petitioner’s father.

2. At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that a counter has been filed and seeks for a short adjournment to get instructions with respect to the minimum age for submitting the application for compassionate appointment.

3. List the matter on 08.09.2026 under the caption ‘for orders’.”

7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the Board Proceedings dated 12.02.2025, the age for giving the application for compassionate appointment is not relevant. Therefore, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the earlier application was rejected on account of the minority of the petitioner is erroneous, but the said order has not been challenged before this Court. However, after attaining the majority, the petitioner again gave application on 05.10.2017. But, the rejection of the said application on the ground of beyond three years is contrary to the understanding of the guidelines. Though the second application was given by the petitioner beyond the period of three years, having the first application was within three years, the rejection by the respondents on account of limitation is erroneous.

8. In such view of the above factual position, this Court finds justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 19.04.2021. However, instead of issuing any Mandamus, this Court would like remit back the matter to the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s issue on the premise that his application is a valid one and has been given within the time frame provided under the guidelines.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s application and pass orders by taking into consideration of the above observation, within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected WMPs are also closed. 10-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KMI

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KMI To

1. The Chairman cum Managing Director Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited., (TANGEDCO). No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel) TANGEDCO. No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

3. The Superintending Engineer TANGEDCO, Gopi Electricity Distribution Circle, Vettaikaran Koil, Nagadevanpalayam, Gopichettipalayam, Erode District-638 476. WP No. 9054 of 2022 AND WMP NOS. 8849, 8850 & 8852 OF 2022 10-09-2026