P JAYAPRAKASH KANNAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks to quash the order of the respondent dated 14.11.2006 and to direct the respondent to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner Palsamy was working as Sub-Inspector of Police in the Police Department and he died on 10.3.1984 while in service. At the time of death of his father, petitioner was 10 years old. The mother of the petitioner made an application on 22.6.1992 to provide compassionate appointment for herself and the respondent informed that the request of the petitioner's mother was under consideration. Necessary certificate from the Tahsildar about the indigent status of the petitioner's family was also obtained and submitted before the respondent. As there was no action from the respondent, the mother of the petitioner sought for suitable employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. Petitioner was asked to produce the relevant certificates and after enquiry, the respondent, by proceeding dated 2.4.2003 informed that pursuant to the enquiry made by the Intelligence Wing, it was found that the sister of the petitioner by name Jalaja was employed as Police Constable and one of the brother of the petitioner Karthikeyan was employed in a private company and another brother Ganesan was doing Milk business and yet another brother was working in abroad and hence as per G.O.Ms. No. 998 Labour and Employment Department, dated 2.5.1981, petitioner was not entitled to get compassionate appointment.

(3.) According to the petitioner, her sister Jalaja joined the Police Department in the year 1981 and got married in the year 1986 and even prior to that she resigned her job and hence the indigent situation of the family of the petitioner remained same. The two brothers Karthikeyan and Ganesan were living separately and they have no link with the family of the petitioner and that the another brother working in abroad left the family even at the young age and he has no connection with the family of the petitioner. Hence according to the petitioner, G.O.Ms. No. 998 Labour and Employment Department, dated 2.5.1981 is not applicable to his case. Petitioner made further representation to the respondent, which was rejected by the respondent by his proceeding dated 14.11.2006. To quash the said proceeding and to provide compassionate appointment petitioner has filed the present writ petition.