R ANBARASI Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the orders passed by the second respondent dated 17. 10. 2004 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to a suitable post to the petitioner.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition is that the petitioner's father, named S. Rajendran was employed as helper in the respondent Board and he died on 27. 09. 1996 by an accident while in service leaving behind the legal heirs, namely, the wife, three daughters, one son, mother and father. The petitioner's mother made a representation to the respondent Board requesting to provide employment assistance on compassionate ground to her. The said representation was rejected on 29. 05. 1998 by the second respondent on the ground that the educational qualification certificate produced by the petitioner's mother was not genuine. The case of the petitioner is that for the post of Sweeper, no educational qualification is required. However, the petitioner's mother did not press for compassionate appointment to her and she made a representation on 25. 03. 1999 to the second respondent and requested to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner. By letter dated 27. 07. 1999, the second respondent informed that the petitioner has not completed 18 years of age and therefore, the application form for compassionate appointment could not be issued. The petitioner after attaining the age of 18 years and completing 12th standard, the petitioner's mother made a representation on 11. 10. 2004 to the second respondent and prayed for issuing appointment order on compassionate ground to the petitioner. The second respondent rejected the said request on 17. 10. 2004 on the ground that the application was a belated one, i. e. , the application was not made within a period of three years from the date of death of the petitioner's father. The said order is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a similar issue, rejecting the compassionate ground appointment on the ground that the application was submitted beyond three years and the same was rejected earlier on the ground that the petitioner therein has not completed 18 years of age, was considered by this Court in W. P. No. 1584/2001 and this Court held that the applications having been made within a period of three years and the same having not been considered on the ground that the petitioner therein was not 18 years of age at that time, the subsequent application cannot be rejected on the ground that the application was submitted within three years. The learned Judge directed the respondents not to treat the second application as an application for compassionate appointment, but it is to be treated as continuation of the application originally submitted. The said Judgment is reported in 2004 (3) CTC 120 (T. Meer Ismail Ali Vs. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board through its Chairman, No. 800 Anna Salai, Chennai-2 and 2 others ). This Court, ultimately, directed the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner therein.