V RAJENDRA DEVAPRASAD Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPT ; DIRECTOR OF FAMILY WELFARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward with the following prayer:

(2.) The petitioner had joined the service of the respondent Department on compassionate grounds, after his father's demise, while he was in sevice of the Government, by proceedings dated 30.06.1992. In the year 1999, action was initiated against the petitioner for securing appointment on compassionate grounds suppressing the fact that his mother was in Government Service, at the time of death of his father, and consequently, by proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 17.05.1999, he was removed from service. Challenging the said termination order, the petitioner moved the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 3325 of 1999 and on 17.06.1999, the Tribunal granted interim stay of the termination order. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was reposted at Government Primary Health Centre, Vairavikuklam, by order dated 15.07.1999. Thereafter, the said O.A. was transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as W.P. No. 43303 of 2009. This Court, by order dated 09.06.2009 disposed of the writ petition as hereunder:

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner submitted his application seeking compassionate appointment only after his mother's retirement. According to the learned counsel, while entertaining the application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment, the petitioner was directed to furnish the relevant documents and details sought by the respondents and the petitioner had also furnished the same. In, one such document, namely, the pension book of the petitioner's father, the employment of the petitioner's mother had been mentioned and therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have suppressed the said fact as alleged by the respondents. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even when the petitioner's mother submitted a petition in 1992, as required by the respondents, she had described about the utilization of the death cum retirement benefits of her husband and her earnings. Only after verifying all the required documents, the petitioner was appoined on compassionate grounds as Store Keeper by proceedings dated 30.06.1992. The respondents did not take any exception to the documents produced, at that point of time, but, in the present impugned order, it has been stated that since the appointment of the petitioner was prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 155 Labour and Employment Department dated 16.07.1993 and since the mother of the petitioner was working as Head Mistress in Corporation Girls Higher Secondary School, Coimbatore, at the time of death of the Government Servant, as per G.O.Ms. No. 998, Labour and Employment Department dated 02.05.1981, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. The impugned order further states that G.O.Ms. 155 dated 16.07.1993 is applicable to cases pending as on 16.07.1993 and to future cases only and therefore, since the family of the petitioner was not in indigent circumstance on the day of death of his father, i.e, on 19.12.1984, as his mother was working as a Headmistress in a Corporation Girls Higher Secondary School at Coimbatore and was living with his father, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds, even on a later date i.e, after the retirement of his mother on 31.05.1991. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner had given his application seeking compassionate appointment after attaining majority as he was a minor when his father passed away; that he had complied with all formalities; that he had not suppressed any material fact and that his mother also died within six months after retirement on account of cancer. According to the learned counsel, if at all, the petitioner's appointment can be termed as an irregular appointment and not an illegal appointment.