K RAVICHANDRAN Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the above writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent in O. A. No. 2159/2003 dated 30. 6. 2003 by confirming the order of the first respondent issued in OMU/4923/02 dated 12. 12. 2002 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground and grant all consequential service and monetary benefits.

(2.) HEARD Mr. K. Venkataramani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Gomathinayagam, learned Special Government Pleader who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) THE petitioner had filed O. A. No. 2159/03 before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal claiming that his application for appointment on compassionate ground should not have been rejected by the Government. The petitioner was born in the year 1963. His mother died in 1966 while she was in service. Subsequently, it is stated that the present petitioner filed an application in the year 1989 for appointment on compassionate ground after completing education. Since the said application had remained pending, thereafter, other applications were filed. Ultimately, the application was rejected during 2002, giving raise to filing of the original application. The Tribunal rejected the said application on the ground that the application for appointment on compassionate ground had been made after a long lapse of time. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the clarification issued by the Government, the period of three years indicated for filing application for appointment on compassionate ground is not applicable to this case where the Government servant in question had died prior to 26. 6. 1995 and thereafter the application should have been considered even though it was filed long after. It is of course true that at the time of death of the mother, the petitioner was three year old child. Obviously he was not entitled to get any appointment at that stage and therefore, the application for appointment on compassionate ground after the completion of education should have been accepted. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2004) 7 SCC 265 (PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs. ASWINI KUMAR TANEJA), it was held: