E VENUGOPAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order dated 4.2.2007 passed by the third respondent and the order of the first respondent, dated 18.10.2007 and also seeks for a direction to consider his claim in a proper perspective and sympathetically in view of his continuance in the office for over 10 years and appoint him as an Office Assistant on compassionate ground with all attendant and consequential benefits.

(2.) BY the impugned order, dated 4.2.2007, the third respondent had terminated the services of the petitioner from the post of Office Assistant in the Marketing Committee at Cuddalore Old Town with effect from 1.1.2007. Thereafter, a proposal sent for re -appointment of the petitioner as an Office Assistant consequent on the death of his father S.Ethirajulu on 8.1.1986 was examined by the Government. The Government by a letter dated 18.10.2007 had stated that the petitioner's continuance for over 10 years on the basis of the Court's order cannot be a ground for considering his re -employment and that the earlier order passed by the State Government on 8.7.1996 will hold good.

(3.) IT is seen from the records that the petitioner's father S.Ethirajulu working as an Office Assistant in the third respondent Marketing Committee died on 8.1.1986. Thereafter, after seven years, the petitioner made a representation seeking for employment assistance on compassionate grounds. The petitioner was informed that when his mother made a request for compassionate appointment for him, the same was refused on the ground that his mother was in employment. Thereafter, after he got married, he did not get any assistance from his mother. Therefore, he must be given an employment assistance. Based upon the same, the third respondent had recommended the case of the petitioner. It was also stated in the said recommendation that the petitioner's mother was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the Cuddalore Municipal School. Thereafter, the second respondent had requested the first respondent whether the petitioner can be given appointment as a Junior Assistant. When there was no reply, the second respondent had informed the third respondent that since the petitioner had modified his request to become an Office Assistant and further since the petitioner was struggling for existence, the third respondent being the appointing Authority, after obtaining written assurance that he will not claim for the post of Junior Assistant, he can be appointed for the post of the Office Assistant.