G MALLIKA Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 14.06.2010 declining the request of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment to the petitioner's son on the ground that the claim of compassionate appointment can be made only within three years from the date of death of the deceased person and on that date, the person seeking compassionate appointment should have completed 18 years of age.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's husband was employed as an Assistant Foreman in the office of the second respondent and he died in harness on 04.10.1998, leaving the petitioner and her two children. The petitioner, being the widow of the deceased, applied for compassionate appointment in the year 2000 before the Assistant Executive Engineer, Vellore in the Agriculture Engineering Department. Her application was recommended and forwarded by the third respondent to the second respondent in Letter No.A1/5366/2000 dated 17.01.2001 and the second respondent through letter No.A/324/2001 dated 08.02.2001 to the first respondent. The said application was kept pending. The third respondent again called the petitioner to submit the copy of the typewriting certificate. The petitioner at that time requested that the petitioner's son may be given appointment on compassionate ground which was forwarded by the third respondent on 01.12.2006 to the second respondent who in turn forwarded the same to the first respondent on 26.12.2006. However, no order was passed till 2008. The petitioner was aged 56 years in the year 2008 and her son A.Sakthivel is eligible to get compassionate appointment as he has passed 10th standard and he has completed 18 years of age on 09.04.2005. The presumptive date of retirement of the petitioner's husband was 30.06.2005. Before the said date, son of the petitioner has completed 18 years of age and also passed S.S.L.C. The second respondent passed an order dated 20.08.2009 which was communicated through the third respondent on 03.09.2009 stating that if the petitioner is willing to get appointment, she can opt for appointment on compassionate grounds. On 26.10.2009, the first respondent replied that the claim of the petitioner's son viz., A.Sakthivel cannot be considered as he has not applied within three years and that he has not completed 18 years within three years from the date of the death of the petitioner's husband. Again a reply was given to the petitioner on 12.11.2009 stating that the petitioner shall give her option to retain her name in the list of seniority maintained for compassionate appointment and at that time the petitioner was above 57 years of age. Now the petitioner is aged 58 years. Therefore, no purpose would be served in considering the claim of the petitioner, seeking compassionate appointment, which the petitioner applied in the year 1999. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner cited judgment of the Supreme Court in Syed Khadim Hussain Vs. State of Bihar and Others ((2006) 9 SCC 195), wherein the Supreme Court gave directions to consider the claim of the son of the deceased person as the widow of the deceased was over aged, even after 11 years from the death of the deceased.

(3.) Relying upon the said judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and the second respondent may be directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment to her son A.Sakthivel.