R.Bhavani v. The Chief Engineer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN R.Bhavani ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Chief Engineer, TANGEDCO No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002 2.The Superintendent Engineer, TANGEDCO Gandhinagar, Katpadi, Vellore-632002.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to issue a compassionate appointment order to the petitioner's daughter R.Boomica by considering the petitioner's representation dated 09.04.2025 and 05.05.2025 within time frame to be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Senthilkumar For R1 and R2 : Mr.C.Manoharan Standing Counsel

O R D E R

1/6

By consent of both the learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal, at the admission stage itself.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer for issuing a Mandamus, directing the Respondents to issue a compassionate appointment order to the petitioner's daughter R.Boomica by considering the petitioner's representation dated 09.04.2025 and 05.05.2025 within time frame to be fixed by this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's husband Late.A.Ramesh was working as Technical Assistant at Operation and Maintenance, Tiruvalam at Vellore District under the control of the 2nd respondent and her husband died on 14.12.2009, while he was in service. Immediately, after the demise of her husband, she has given an application on 02.11.2011 seeking compassionate appointment to her. It is the contention of the petitioner that vide letter dated 18.02.2020, the respondents 2/6

themselves have referred that there is a delay on their part in proceeding further with the petitioner's application. Whileso, the petitioner became over aged. Now that she has given representations before the respondents on 09.04.2025 and 05.05.2025 seeking compassionate appointment for her daughter and such representations are pending with the respondents.

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would strongly object the contention of the petitioner and would submit that the petitioner's daughter was 9 years old on the date of the death of the employee Mr.A.Ramesh, and was not eligible to be considered for compassionate ground appointment.

6. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner, whereas she has given application well within time and there was administrative delay on the part of the respondents, that is why she become ineligible. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the present representations.

7. In such view of the factual position, without going into the merits of the writ petition, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to 3/6

consider the petitioner's representations dated 09.04.2025 and 05.05.2025 and pass orders on it's own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 11.07.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking order dm 4/6

To 1.The Chief Engineer, TANGEDCO No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002 2.The Superintendent Engineer, TANGEDCO Gandhinagar, Katpadi, Vellore-632002.

5/6

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

dm 11.07.2025 6/6