A SEENIVASAN Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein applied for appointment on compassionate ground before the respondent herein on 2.11.2006, which admittedly was after three years of the death of the petitioner's father. THE petitioner's father was working as a Secondary Grade Assistant and died on 16.11.1997. At the time of the death of the father of the petitioner, apart from the petitioner, the deceased left behind his wife and daughter. Placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour & Employment Department dated 16.7.1993, the petitioner's sister applied for compassionate appointment on 10.3.2000. However, on account of the health, the widow of the deceased did not seek employment. THE respondent, however, returned the application of the petitioner's sister stating that the mother should have applied for compassionate appointment or else, the petitioner's sister should have made an application with medical certificate as to the inability of the mother to get appointment. THEreafterwards, since the petitioner's sister got married in the year 2002, the petitioner, on attaining majority in the year 2006, made an application on 02.11.2006 for compassionate appointment. It may be noted herein that during the interregnum period there was a ban in recruitment, which was lifted in the year 2006. However, the petitioner's request for compassionate appointment based on G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department dated 16.7.1993 was rejected under order dated 11.5.2009. THE respondent took the view that the petitioner's sister got married on 17.2.2002, however, at the time of the death of the Government servant, namely, the petitioner's father, his mother had not attained even 50 years. In the circumstances, the widow of the deceased should have sought for an employment at the first instance. In the circumstances, the question of considering the petitioner, being third legal heir, after the expiry of the three year period, for appointment on compassionate appointment cannot be accepted.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court seeking Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order and to direct the respondent to consider the application on merits without insisting the limitation period.

(3.) A perusal of G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department dated 16.7.1993 shows that the Government thought fit to grant appointment to a member of the family of a Government servant, who died in harness. As per paragraph 5 of the G.O., only the dependants of the Government servant, namely, wife/husband/son/unmarried daughter would be eligible for appointment. The Government Order further states that if the widow is not educationally qualified, she could be given a job like sweeper. The married daughter, who is deserted by her husband and living with the family of the deceased Government servant, may be considered for compassionate appointment subject to the widow of the deceased Government servant gives her consent in writing. Paragraph 7 of the Government Order states that the cases requiring relaxation will be considered by the committee constituted with reference to para 20 of the Chief Minister's standing order No.2, Personnel and administrative Reforms dated 9.1.92.