The prayer in the writ petitioner is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent letter NO. 017385/3037 Na.P.2.2.2.Ko.Va.Vey/10 dated 17.06.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment in suitable post with the respondent electricity department within the time frame fixed by this Court.
2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband was working with the respondent Department from 1992 as a contract labourer. He had put in continuous and uninterrupted service for more than 17 years. While so, number of employees like the petitioner's husband, since had put in more number of service to the respondent Department as contract workers/labourers, the department suggested to absorb them in permanent post, accordingly, proceeding was issued by the Chief Engineer of the respondent Board on 30.05.2009, based on which, the respondent Board passed an order dated 02.06.2010, whereby 227 such contract employees had been given permanent postings. Unfortunately, before such proceeding had been issued, the petitioner's husband died on 24.01.2010.
3. After the death of the petitioner's husband, when the petitioner submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment on 08.06.2010, ie, after the issuance of order dated 02.06.2010, whereby 337 employees including the petitioner's husband had been made permanent by way of absorption by the respondent Board, the said request of the petitioner had been rejected by the present impugned order dated 17.06.2010. In the said order, the respondent Board has stated that since the petitioner's husband had been working with the respondent Board only as a daily wages temporary employee and he had not been brought under permanent employee with time scale of pay and since the petitioner's husband had not been worked as a permanent employee with the time scale of pay, the petitioner would not be entitled to seek compassionate appointment and therefore, it was rejected. Challenging the said order, dated 17.06.2010, the petitioner has come out with the present writ petition.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent by relying upon the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents has submitted that the scheme of compassionate appointment in the respondent TANGEDCO is for dependent of the regular employees only and not for temporary, adhoc, contract employees on need basis as and when necessary. The learned counsel for the respondent further submit that since the petitioner's husband had not been worked as a permanent employee, the present petitioner being the dependent of the adhoc contract or daily wages employee cannot be considered for compassionate appointment and therefore, the said request was turned down by the respondent through the impugned order.
6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would invite the attention of this Court to the said proceeding issued by the respondent board dated 02.06.2010, wherein, in the reference column, the following has been mentioned:
?2.The Superintending Engineer is informed that with reference to the orders issued in (Per) B.P.(FB) No.44, (Adm. Branch) dated 06.09.2007 the Contract Labourers, who were absorbed as Temporary Casual Labourers for a period of one year vide Sl.NO.1 to 337 already furnished in the Annexure of this Memo, 3rd cited have to be appointed as Assessor Grade II, Helper cum Meter Reader in the time scale of pay of Rs.5400-20200 + 1900 Grade pay and Mazdoor in the time scale of pay of Rs.4900-10000+1400 Grade Pay as per their qualification.
3.The Temporary Casual Labourers who are having requisite qualification prescribed by the Board for the post of Assessor Grade II, Helper cum Meter Reader and Mazdoor as furnished by the Superintending Engineers are hereby selected for appointment to the post of Assessor Grade II, Helper ? cum Meter Reader in the time scale of pay of Rs.5400 ? 20200 + 1900 and Mazdoor in the time scale of pay of Rs.4900-10000 + 1400.?
7. Along with the said order, an Annexure consist of 337 names had also been given. In the said Annexure, the petitioner's husband name ie., A.Mari is found at Sl.NO.137, wherein, in the column of date of birth, it is mentioned as 23.04.1975 and in the qualification column, it is stated that 10th standard failed and the third column, wherein date of entry as casual labour, it is mentioned as 12.08.1992. Therefore, from the said document dated 02.06.2010 of the respondents, it become quite clear that the petitioner's husband is one among the 337 temporary employees, who had been considered and appointed as permanent employee of the Board and they were also brought under time scale of pay. Since the petitioner's husband is qualified with 10th standard failed and he had entered into service as casual labourer from 1992 and his date of birth is only 1975, as per the order dated 02.06.2010, the petitioner's husband, if not died would have continued for long years as permanent employee with the time scale of pay with the respondent Department. However, unfortunately, the petitioner's husband died on 24.01.2010. During that time, the issuance of orders dated 02.06.2010, though was not made, but was under active consideration, as in the reference column item No.3, the Chief Engineers memo dated 30.05.2009 has been specifically mentioned, according to which, the said Chief Engineer's proposal of the 337 persons including the petitioner's husband could be appointed either as Assessor Grade II or Helper cum Meter Reader.
8. Since the petitioner's husband was having the qualification of 10th standard failed, he would have been appointed in any one of the said post mentioned in the order dated 02.06.2010 and also could have been brought under time scale of pay. However, unfortunately, before the said order was issued on 02.06.2010, the petitioner's husband died and therefore, the reasons adduced by the 2nd respondent in the impugned order cannot have any basis, as specifically the order dated 02.06.2010, has brought the petitioner's husband under the time scale of pay with permanent employment. Therefore, in fact, the petitioner's husband would be entitled to seek all service benefits from the respondent board as a permanent employee, nevertheless, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's husband has not been given any death cum retirement benefits and even the application now made by the widow of the deceased employee of the respondent Board has been turned down without any plausible reasons.
9. All these proceedings as referred to above and the facts of the case would clearly establish that the petitioner has got every right to seek compassionate appointment in the respondent board, as the reason cited by the respondent through the impugned order cannot be a valid reason, in view of the aforesaid facts and therefore, the said impugned order dated 17.06.2010 is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is quashed.
10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed; the respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and considering the indigent circumstances of the family of the petitioner, necessary orders shall be passed by the respondents for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner and the said exercise shall be done by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.