R YASOTHA Vs. APPELLATE COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward to challenge an order, dated 26.5.2005 passed by the second respondent Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation as well as the order dated 21.09.2006 and after setting aside the same, seeks for reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

(2.) In the writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 1.2.2007. Pending the writ petition, though the petitioner sought for an interim order, no interim order was granted. By the impugned order, dated 26.5.2005, the second respondent dismissed the petitioner from service. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Committee of the Corporation vide appeal, dated 30.05.2005. The committee which met on 1.9.2006 rejected the appeal and it was directed to be communicated to the petitioner through the second respondent by the subsequent order impugned in the writ petition.

(3.) The brief facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner's father late R.Rengarajan was working as a driver in the then Tiruchirappalli Municipality. He passed away on 19.09.1985. At the relevant time, the petitioner was a minor and hardly four years and she was not eligible for any compassionate appointment both on the ground of minor and lack of qualification. Long after the death of the petitioner's father, i.e. nearly after a period of 11 years, the petitioner's mother, who herself was employed as a medical staff in the Homeopathy Wing of the Government Hospital, Perambalur with effect from 25.8.1987, made an application dated 26.7.1996, seeking for an appointment to her daughter on compassionate grounds, stating that she finds it difficult in running the family after the death of her husband with a meagre income and therefore, the respondents should consider the case of the petitioner (by then the petitioner was only 16 years) for employment. In fact, after the death of the petitioner's father, all his terminal benefits were settled in favour of his family. But, the petitioner's mother made a representation for compassionate appointment in favour of her daughter, but she was not eligible in terms of the Government scheme and also both on the grounds of delay and that her mother was employed.