Uncategorized

Compensation order HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU W. P.(MD) No.3821 of 2024and W.M.P.(MD) No.3714 of 2024 R.Prabha … Petitioner -vs- 1.The Secretary Office of the Tamilnadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Department

by Sekar Reporter · December 1, 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date of Reserving the Order Date of Pronouncing the Order
13.10.2025 26.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W. P.(MD) No.3821 of 2024and
W.M.P.(MD) No.3714 of 2024
R.Prabha … Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Secretary
Office of the Tamilnadu Electricity
Generation and Distribution Department
Chief Secretariat, Chennai
2.The District Collector
Office of the District Collector Thanjavur
3.The Superintending Engineer
Office of the Superintending Engineer
TNEB, No.1, Vallam Road
Thanjavur
4.The Assistant Executive Engineer Office of the TNEB
The Assistant Executive Office
Madukur, Pattukotai Taluk Thanjavur District
5.The Inspector of Police
Madukur Police Station
Pattukotai Taluk
Thanjavur District (Crime No.648/2021) … Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent dated 27.04.2023 Mu.Mu.
2057.2023.A3 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Vishnu
For Respondents : Mr.B.Ramanathan
Standing Counsel for R1, R3 & R4
Mr.M.Sidharthan
Additional Government Pleader for R2 & R5
O R D E R
This Writ Petition had been filed to quash the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent dated 27.04.2023.
2. Heard Mr.J.Vishnu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.B.Ramanathan, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents , 3, & 4 and Mr.M.Sidharthan learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the second and fifth respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s husband was employed in TNEB on contract basis from the year 2001 and had been working on such basis and also received payments in that regard till 2016. He had also been engaged on contract basis from 2016 up till
17/09/2021 and he was given wages on daily basis.

4. While that being so, the petitioner’s husband was called upon by one of the employees of the Department for rectifying an electrical connection which was disconnected. In the process of carrying out the work, the petitioner’s husband had died due to electrocution on 17.09.2021. An FIR in Crime No. 648 of 2021 was registered under Section 304A IPC on the very same date. After the death of the petitioner’s husband, who was earning on daily wages with the TNEB, the petitioner and her children have been left in a penurious circumstances. Hence, she had also made an application for appointing her on compassionate basis. As the same was not considered, the petitioner had moved this Court in W.P.(MD).No.19722 of 2022, wherein direction was issued to the second respondent to consider the claim of the petitioners and pass suitable orders.

5. The petitioner was also called upon to appear before the second respondent and the petitioner had produced various documents establishing the petitioner’s husband had been employed with the Department. Under the impugned orders, the second respondent had rejected the claim of the petitioner by holding that there is no proof that the petitioner’s husband has been continuously working with the Electricity Board and the death of the petitioner’s husband had taken place when he had been unauthorisedly employed by the officials of the Department without following the Rules in that regard for which the Department cannot be held liable and the husband is also not coming under the benefits granted under the Board Proceedings for permanent absorption with the Board. As the petitioner’s husband was not a permanent employee nor a contract employee there is no Provision to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. He would content that the same is contrary to the records that had been produced by the petitioner and produce in the typed set of papers. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court.

6. Countering his arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1st, 3 & 4 would submit that the petitioner had not made any application seeking compensation for the death of her husband and her request for compassionate appointment cannot be considered as the petitioner’s husband is neither a permanent employee nor had been employed on contract basis and there is also no power for the second respondent. But, however considering the fact that the petitioner’s husband died in the year 2021, the petitioner would be entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- pursuant to the Board Proceedings No.11, dated 21.12.2024. Hence, he would submit that the impugned order is valid and there is no necessity for this Court to interfere with the order impugned in this Writ Petition.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
8. From the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it could be seen that one Foreman working in the office of the fourth respondent had deployed the petitioner’s husband on his own motion for installation of an electric pole without getting any prior permission from the Department. While erecting the electric pole the petitioner’s husband had unfortunately died and the said Foreman had been suspended and had been imposed with a punishment. Therefore, there is a categorical admission that the husband of the petitioner had died during the course of his employment with the respondent, however, the same is unauthorised.

9. Even though, it has been disputed by the respondent that the petitioner’s husband had not been employed on contract basis. From the admission made, it could be seen that he had been employed by the Department without authorization. The Department cannot shriek of their liability as they are vicariously liable for such appointments being made by its employees.

10. Even though, the petitioner had claimed that the petitioner’s husband had been in continuous employment, the petitioner had not produced any records to substantiate her claim that the petitioner’s husband had been employed on a contract basis regularly with the Department, at least preceding the last 5 years to the death by producing relevant documents to that effect. Admittedly, the Board have been paying ex-gratia payment to the deaths that have been caused due to electrocution under various Board Proceedings.
11. In such view of the matter, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner could also be compensated by making ex-gratia payment. Admittedly, under the Board Proceedings of the year 2024, the ex-gratia payment that has been declared for such deaths varied from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/-. Even though, it is the claim of the respondent that only the Board Proceedings that was prevailing in the year 2021 could be applicable, this Court is unable to accept the said contention as such the said ex-gratia payments are made available to the deaths that has been caused due to electrocution to the citizens and not to the death caused by electrocution in the course of working for the Board. Since, the petitioner’s husband had admittedly died during his employment even though unauthorised with the Board, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be sufficiently compensated and this Court quantifies the said compensation by way of exgratia payment as Rs.20,00,000/- payable by the Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board.
12. In such view of the matter, this Writ Petition stands dismissed, however, direction to the first respondent to disburse Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioner and her family as ex-gratia payment for the death of her husband on 17.09.2021. Such payment shall be made within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
26.11.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Gba
To:
1.The Secretary
Office of the Tamilnadu Electricity
Generation and Distribution Department
Chief Secretariat, Chennai
2.The District Collector
Office of the District Collector Thanjavur
3.The Superintending Engineer
Office of the Superintending Engineer
TNEB, No.1, Vallam Road Thanjavur
4.The Assistant Executive Engineer
Office of the TNEB
The Assistant Executive Office
Madukur, Pattukotai Taluk Thanjavur District
5.The Inspector of Police
Madukur Police Station
Pattukotai Taluk
Thanjavur District (Crime No.648/2021)