A DANIAL Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks to quash the order of the third respondent dated 28. 2. 1996 rejecting the request of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment on the ground that the petitioner is the adopted son of one t. Vadivelu, who worked with petitioner's father and therefore the petitioner is not in indigent circumstance.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that on 21. 2. 1989 his father died while he was in service as Office Assistant in the Government central press, Chennai-79, coming under the Directorate of Stationary and Printing, chennai-2. Further case of the petitioner is that one V. Parameswari, wife of T. Vadivelu, filed a petition before this court in O. P. No. 467 of 1991 and prayed to appoint her as guardian of the petitioner, who was a minor at that time, to claim the benefits of deceased petitioner's father, worth Rs. 30,102/-and this Court by order dated 25. 9. 1991 appointed the said V. Parameswari as guardian of the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of death of petitioner's father, the petitioner was 14 years old and after attaining majority, he had applied for compassionate appointment on the grounds that no one in his family was employed; that his mother pre-deceased his father; and that, he is the only son. Petitioner has also produced a certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Purasawalkam-Perambur, to the effect that the petitioner was receiving only Rs. 51 9/- as family pension; he is having no movable or immovable property; he is the only legal heir of the deceased employee by name S. G. Aruldoss; and hence he is in indigent circumstance. In fact, the Tahsildar by his report dated 31. 10. 1994 recommended to the second respondent to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner as he is in indigent circumstance. But, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order was passed wrongly construing that the petitioner was looked after by t. Vadivelu, a co-employee of petitioner's father and he is the adopted son of t. Vadivelu and hence he is not entitled to get compassionate appointment.