Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 4631 (MAD)

Jermain v. Commissioner, Madurai Corporation

2010-10-21

T.RAJA

body2010
Judgment : 1. As against the order of refusal to give compassionate appointment, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the impugned order dated 24.12.2007 refusing to give pension, gratuity and other monetary benefits and also compassionate appointment. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 3. When the 1st petitioner ‘ s husband, Late M. Arulanandam, was discharging some electrical works during the Chief Minister ‘ s visit to Madurai on 17.10.1992, he was asked by his superiors to do some work in the electrical pole near Tamarithotti, K. Pudur, Madurai. Before starting the electrical work, some of his colleagues, who were also working as electricians in the 4th Power Station, disconnected the power supply and thereafter, they started working in 4th power station. Since the 1st petitioner ‘ s husband, Late M. Arulanandam, on the instructions of his superiors, claimed the pole to carry out the work allotted to him, but unfortunately, all of a sudden, while he was working in the 4th power station, the 1st petitioner ‘ s husband Late M. Arulanandam was electrocuted by sudden supply of electricity and as a result, he was thrown out form the electric pole and his body was completely burnt and subsequently, died on 17.10.1992. At the time of his death, he was 40 years. In the meantime, the persons, who were working along with Late Arulanandam, filed cases for permanency of their employment before the Labour Court and the Labour Court, by order dated 13.11.1992, directed the respondent corporation to observe all the temporary electricians with effect from 1.1.1993 and also directed to fix the new wages for them. Subsequently, all the temporary electricians were made permanent employees just before one month i.e. on 17.10.1992, on which date the 1st petitioner‘s husband Late M. Arulanandam died on account of the electrocution. Thereafter, a representation was made to the respondent with a request to give pension, gratuity and other monetary benefits along with compassionate appointment to anyone of her family members, who, in turn, were refused pension, gratuity and also the compassionate appointment, stating that on the date of death of her husband, he was not a permanent employee of the Corporation and the said impugned order dated 24.12.2007 refusing to give above relief is under challenge. 4. 4. The 1st petitioner‘s husband Late M. Arulanandam was admittedly employed from 13.10.1979 in connection with the 5th World Tamil Conference in the month of January,1980 at Madurai. Only in connection with the 5th World Tamil Conference, 175 workers were temporarily appointed, in view of the G.O. Ms. No. 1699, Rural Development and Legal Administrative Department, dated 23.10.1979. Even after the completion of the 5th World Tamil Conference, all the above said 175 temporary workers were allowed to continue under the respondent Corporation. Subsequently, on making a claim before the Labour Court, seeking permanency of the employment, the Labour Court, by award dated 13.11.1992, directed the respondent corporation to observe all the temporary electricians with effect from 1.1.1993 and also directed to fix the new wages for them. This order came to be passed just one month after the death of the 1st petitioner‘s husband. Had he been alived, he would have also got the similar benefits. 5. Be that as it may, it is not disputed that the 1st petitioner‘s husband, Late M. Arulanandam had died on account of the electrocution, while he was working on the 4th power station. At the time of his death, he was left behind his wife, one son and two daughters. Therefore, the respondent Corporation should have considered the case of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order dated 24.12.2007 refusing to consider the compassionate appointment needs to be interfered with. 6. In view of the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to direct the respondent Corporation to give compassionate appointment to anyone of the 1st petitioner‘s family members subject to the educational qualification. 7. In respect of claim for payment of pension, gratuity and other monetary benefits, though this Court cannot direct for the payment of pension, gratuity and other monetary benefits on the ground that the similarly placed temporarily employees were got regularized, however, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Parvati Devi and Others v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Others (2000) 3 SCC 754 , which is extracted as under, this Court is inclined to direct the respondent to pay a lump sum compensation of ` 2,00,000/-for the legal heirs of the deceased. “ 2. “ 2. The appellants moved the High Court of Delhi claiming compensation as the husband of appellant 1 died on account of electrocution while walking on the road. That the death was on account of electric shock is established in view of the CFSL report from Calcutta. But as the appellants could not produce relevant materials indicating the negligence of any particular officer of the authority, the High Court refused to award compensation. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed. once it is established that the death occurred on account of electrocution while walking on the road, necessarily the authorities concerned must be held to be negligent, and therefore, in the case in hand, it would be NDMC who would be responsible for the death in question. It is found from the records that the appellant was serving as a mechineman in The Statesman and was aged 54 years on the date of death, and the age of retirement is 60 years. Taking these factors into consideration, we direct that the appellants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, be awarded compensation to the tune of ` 1,00,000/-and NDMC should pay the same within 3 months from today failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 12%. This should be in total satisfaction of the compensation for the legal heirs of the deceased. ” In the above said judgment, the Apex Court, by considering the age of the deceased at 54 and also the age of the retirement being 60 years, directed the respondent department to pay a sum of ` 1,00,000/-within a period of three months, failing which, the said amount will carry interest at the rate 12%. By considering the unfortunate situation, upon which the petitioners ‘ sole breadwinner was electrocuted sadly at the age of 40 years, this Court directs the respondent Corporation to pay a sum of ` 2,00,000/-in total satisfaction of the compensation for the legal heirs of the deceased. 8. The present writ petition is allowed with the above directions. No Costs.