T. MANIKANDAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of rejection, rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner states that his mother Tmt.K.Kala died on 2/1/1999, while he was working as Secondary Grade Assistant in Panchayat Union Elementary School, Namathodu, Peranamallur Union. The petitioner states that his mother died leaving behind his father, the petitioner and his sister. At the time of the death of his mother, he was aged about 13 years. The petitioner submitted an application on 20/12/2001, seeking appointment of compassionate ground. His father also made a representation, requesting the authorities to provide appointment to the writ petitioner on compassionate ground. However, the respondents had not taken action immediately and there was a ban for compassionate appointment for the year 2001 to 2006. Even thereafter, the writ petitioner has not pursued his remedy. Finally, he filed W.P.No.21084 of 2014 and this Court directed the authorities to consider the representation on 8/9/2014. Pursuant to the direction, the respondents issued the impugned order, stating that as on the date of the death of the deceased employee, the petitioner was a minor and further his father was also an earning member during the relevant point of time. Thus, the legal heirs of the deceased employee are not eligible to avail the benefits of the scheme of compassionate appointment.

(3.) Admittedly, the petitioner was a minor during the relevant point of time and therefore, he was not eligible to seek appointment. His father, who is the husband of the deceased employee, was also an earning member and therefore, under the scheme, no appointment can be provided under the scheme of appointment. That apart, the mother of the writ petitioner died on 2/1/1999. Now after a lapse of about 22 years, the benefit of scheme cannot be extended.