G.KABILAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's father was working as a Watchman in the Government Press at Salem. He died on 21.6.2000, while he was in service. He left behind his wife, who is the mother of the petitioner, the petitioner and his younger brother and also the mother of the deceased government servant. Immediately after the death of the father of the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment in the year 2001 itself. The second respondent sent a letter dated 12.1.2005 informing the mother of the petitioner that the second respondent received the application from the mother of the petitioner for compassionate appointment through the third respondent and that no Government Order was received relating to compassionate appointment. It was stated therein that the claim for compassionate appointment of the mother of the petitioner would be considered only after receipt of the Government Order. Thereafter, the second respondent sent another letter dated 7.4.2005 that there was a ban on recruitment and thus the appointment under compassionate ground would be considered after lifting the ban, by the Government.

(2.) The second respondent again sent a letter dated 3.8.2006 to the mother of the petitioner directing her to appear on 14.8.2006 at 11.00 a.m., for a test to find out as to whether the mother of the petitioner had knowledge in Tamil for the purpose of providing compassionate appointment. While so, the third respondent, the Branch Manager, Government Branch Press, Salem, issued a letter dated 9.1.2008 that the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment would be considered, after the Special Committee decides about the requirement of the employees in the Directorate of Stationery and Printing Department. The letter of the third respondent is based on the letter of the second respondent dated 19.12.2007.

(3.) In the said circumstances, a representation was made by the mother of the petitioner for compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The third respondent sent a letter dated 19.3.2009 directing the petitioner to appear before him to provide particulars relating to his claim for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, he appeared before the third respondent and provided particulars.