M.Chennan @ Sampath, v. The Chairman And Managing
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR M.Chennan @ Sampath S/o. (late) A.Munusamy ... Petitioner vs.
1.
The Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO, formerly TNEB Limited 144, Anna Salai Chennai-600 002.
2.
The Chief Engineer (Personnel) TANGEDCO, formerly TNEB Limited 144, Anna Salai Chennai-600 002.
3.
The Superintending Engineer (Personnel) TANGEDCO, formerly TNEB Limited 4.
The Executive Engineer TANGEDCO, formerly TNEB Limited 5.
The Assistant Executive Engineer TANGEDCO, formerly TNEB Limited Page Nos.1/6
... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the third respondent herein namely, the Superintending Engineer (Personnel), TANGEDCO, formerly TNEB Limited, Dharmapuri Distribution Electricity Circle, Dharmapuri, bearing Ka.No.514246/444/NP.2/Ko.Va.V/2012 dated 21.11.2012, quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents herein to appoint the petitioner in the post of helper or any other suitable post commensurate with the qualification of the petitioner on compassionate grounds consequent on the demise of his (late) father A.Munnusamy within a short date that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Rajarajan For Respondents :
Mr.David Sundar Singh Standing Counsel *****
O R D E R
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.11.2012 issued by the third respondent, by which the petitioner's request for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected.
2. The petitioner's father, while serving as a Line Inspector in the Page Nos.2/6
respondent-TANGEDCO, died in harness on 11.02.1997. Upon attaining the age of majority, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 31.12.2011 to the respondents seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The said representation came to be rejected by the impugned order.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The materials available on record have been carefully perused and duly considered.
4. It is seen from the records that, subsequent to the demise of the employee, the petitioner's mother had earlier submitted a representation dated 14.06.2005 seeking employment on compassionate grounds for her minor son. The said representation was considered and rejected by the respondents vide communication dated 22.08.2005 on the ground that the application had not been submitted within the prescribed period of three years from the date of death of the employee. The said rejection order was not challenged before any competent forum and, therefore, attained finality.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner, on attaining the age of majority, submitted a fresh representation dated 31.12.2011 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The said representation was also rejected on the Page Nos.3/6
ground that it was submitted beyond the prescribed period of three years from the date of death of the employee.
6. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner's request was considered in accordance with B.P. No.46 dated 13.10.1995 and Memo dated 24.05.2001, which govern appointments on compassionate grounds in the respondent Corporation. As per the said provisions, an application for compassionate appointment must be submitted by the spouse of the deceased employee on behalf of the minor child within three years from the date of the demise of the employee.
7. In the present case, the application seeking compassionate appointment was admittedly submitted beyond the prescribed three-year period. Further, the earlier rejection order dated 22.08.2005 was allowed to attain finality and was not assailed before any competent forum.
8. It is well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a matter of right but is an exception to the general rule of appointment, intended only to provide immediate financial relief to the family of the deceased employee. Since the representation was filed beyond the stipulated Page Nos.4/6
time limit and in contravention of the governing scheme, the impugned order dated 21.11.2012 passed by the third respondent does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court.
9. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
28.01.2026 Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking mk To 1.
The Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO, formerly TNEB Limited 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
2.
The Chief Engineer (Personnel) TANGEDCO, formerly TNEB Limited 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
3.
The Superintending Engineer (Personnel) TANGEDCO, formerly TNEB Limited 4.
The Executive Engineer TANGEDCO, formerly TNEB Limited 5.
The Assistant Executive Engineer TANGEDCO, formerly TNEB Limited Page Nos.5/6
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J., mk 28.01.2026 Page Nos.6/6