G. MOHANA PRIYA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order issued vide Na.Ka.No.31926/M4/09, dtd. 22/12/2009, issued by the Commissioner, Fisheries Department, Teynampet, Chennai - 6 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider and appoint the applicant in any suitable post on compassionate grounds.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner's father R.Gnanasekaran was employed as Junior Engineer in the office of the Fisheries Department. He died on 1/1/1998 while in service. Petitioner's mother predeceased her father on 20/9/1989. At the time of her father's death, she was aged about 11 years and her brother G.Sathiyan was aged about 30 years, but he was suffering from mental depression. Fourth respondent is the second wife of the petitioner's father R.Gnanasekaran. After the death of petitioner's father, serious disputes arose between the fourth respondent and petitioner. Fourth respondent obstructed respondents 1 to 3 from disbursing the terminal benefits to the petitioner and other legal heirs. Petitioner's father did not own any movable or immovable properties. Petitioner and her brother were surviving on the mere pension received by their grand mother. After long struggle, part of the terminal benefits were paid to the legal heirs on 13/4/2009. Fourth respondent is working as Secondary Grade Teacher at Panchayat Union Medical School. It is learnt that the family pension had been sanctioned to the fourth respondent vide order No.AG (A&E)/PN P 27/3/G 12 - 368/FP/2008 - 2009/4432,4433, 4434, dtd. 30/7/2008 in PPO No.FC/555434 FTS. Petitioner's father died leaving her and her brother in harness. Petitioner's brother was suffering from several mental depression. Petitioner and her brother were literally on the streets and suffering hard to eke out their livelihood. Number of representations were sent to respondents 1 to 3 from 23/2/1998 onwards seeking compassionate appointment. Without considering any of the representations, petitioner's representation was rejected and the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.31926/M4/09, dtd. 22/12/2009 was passed. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is filed.

(3.) It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the rejection of the petitioner's representation for compassionate appointment on the ground that the application was not submitted within a period of three years from the date of the death of the father is not correct for the reason that a minor cannot be appointed in a Government service. Only after obtaining majority, one can apply for compassionate appointment. Admittedly, petitioner was minor at the time of the death of her father and therefore, her representation after obtaining majority, seeking compassionate appointment should be favourably considered.