NAGAPATTINAM Vs. N. RENUGADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has come up with this appeal against the judgment and order dated 9.11.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.2994 of 2011, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein to consider her application for appointment on compassionate grounds.

(2.) THE husband of the respondent/writ petitioner, who was working as a Seaman, died in harness on 5.3.1990. She filed an application for appointment on compassionate grounds on 12.11.1990 and again on 5.6.1991. By proceedings dated 13.9.1996, she was asked to produce relevant documents for being considered for appointment to the post of Sweeper on compassionate grounds. However, this time, the respondent made a request for appointment of her son, who was studying in IX Standard at that point of time. THE request of the respondent was ultimately rejected by order dated 30.4.2010 on the ground that the application was belated and in view of G.O. Ms. No.202 dated 8.10.2007, the same cannot be considered since it was made after the expiry of three years from the date of death of the deceased employee.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while contending that the order of the learned single Judge was perfectly valid in law, cited two judgments one rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. B. Kishore reported in 2011 Lab. I.C. 2137 = (2011) 13 SCC 131 and the other one rendered by this Court in the case of Mohanambal vs. Director, Land and Survey Department reported in 2011 (1) C.T.C. 349 both on the lines that the indigent circumstances of the applicant seeking appointment on compassionate grounds should weigh with the authorities while considering such an application, submitted that the learned single Judge correctly appreciated the factual matrix of the case and issued the direction for compassionate appointment of the respondent adopting a humanitarian consideration of the matter and in view of the penury suffered by her. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the order of the learned single Judge should not be interfered with.