P. PURUSOTHAMAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioner is the son of late N. Ponmudi. The said Ponmudi, who was working as Hammerman in the Southern Railway, died in harness on 02.12.2003 leaving behind his second wife, his three children, viz., the petitioner, who is born through his second wife and two other sons and a daughter born through his first wife. The case of the petitioner is that since the family had no other source of income and as the other members of the family are not eligible for appointment, he submitted representations dated 28.6.2005 and 23.11.2006 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds and the same was rejected by the third respondent by communication dated 17.11.2006 on the ground of certain discrepancies. Subsequently, the petitioner moved the Lok Adalat on 19.10.2010 and as per its advice, he made further representations on 03.6.2011 and 03.10.2001 to the General Manager, Southern Railway. The same was again rejected by the third respondent by letter dated 16.11.2011 stating that the earlier reply dated 17.11.2006 holds good. The said rejection letter was impugned before the Tribunal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the sudden death of the deceased caused financial crisis to the family and even the discrepancies noted by the Department were corrected as per decree in O.S. No . 1520 of 2009. He would further submit that the first wife of the deceased died on 10.9.1981 and her sons relinquished their claim for appointment as they were not qualified and have also consented to process the claim in favour of the petitioner.