S.P. RAGAVENDRAN Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the respondent to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner as 'Junior Assistant'. The case of the petitioner is that his father was working as 'Superintendent' in the Marketing Committee, Theni and died on 4.1.1995 while in service, leaving behind the petitioner as his son and his wife P. Andal as legal heirs. Immediately, after the death of the petitioner's father, an application was submitted to the respondent by the petitioner's mother seeking for compassionate appointment to the petitioner in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 225, Labour Department, dated 15.7.1972. The petitioner passed S.S.L.C. in April 1997, +2 in March 1990 and B.Com. in April 2002 and therefore, he is fully qualified to be appointed to the post of Junior Assistant. The respondent through his communication, dated 27.2.1995 informed that the compassionate appointment can be granted to the petitioner only after attaining eligibility, if no other member was in Government service. The Secretary, Marketing Committee, Madurai, through his proceedings, dated 5.12.2001 sent necessary proposal to the respondent and recommended for compassionate appointment to the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner's mother also died on 25.11.2003. As no information was received on the petitioner's application seeking for compassionate appointment, he approached the Chief Minister Cell. Thereafter, the respondent through communication, dated 17.9.2004 informed the petitioner that there was a ban on appointment and his request will be considered after the lifting of the ban.

(2.) It is stated by the petitioner that the ban imposed in the year 2002 was subsequently lifted in the year 2006. Thereafter, the Secretary, Marketing Committee, Madurai once again sent a proposal to the respondent for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner through his communication, dated 2.3.2006. The respondent did not consider the request, in spite of the petitioner's repeated requests and representations made on 10.8.2009 and 18.8.2009. In fact, the respondent sought for certain particulars from the Secretary, Marketing Committee, Madurai through his communication, dated 10.9.2009. It is stated that the Secretary through his communication, dated 3.11.2009 sent all the requisite particulars. In spite of the same, the petitioner's request was not considered and therefore, the present writ petition is filed before this Court.

(3.) The respondent filed a counter affidavit and it is stated that the petitioner's father was working as 'Superintendent' in the Regulated Market, Theni and died on 4.1.1995 while in service. His wife P. Andal sent an application seeking for appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner. The said application was forwarded to the respondent by the Secretary, Marketing Committee, Madurai, through his letter, dated 8.2.1995. The respondent informed the Secretary, Marketing committee, Madurai that the legal heir of the Government servant is eligible for compassionate appointment, only if no other family members are working in the Government service and other jobs. The wife of the deceased, once again submitted an application along with necessary records seeking for an appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. The petitioner was informed that there was a ban on appointment and the petitioner's case will be considered only after lifting of the ban. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an application on 2.3.2006 with relevant records seeking for appointment on compassionate ground. The said application was considered and rejected on the ground that the petitioner's mother was working in a private school and getting a monthly salary of Rs. 4,439/-. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a mercy petition to the Government on 24.9.2009 and the Government called for remarks from the respondent and consequently asked the Secretary, Marketing Committee, Madurai to send the required documents regarding the petitioner's mercy petition for further action.