K JAYALAKSHMI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) IT has been stated by the petitioner that her father Krishna Muthu Raja had died in harness, on 29.11.90, while he was working as a Watchman-cum-Waterman in Government Girls High School, Pugalur, Trichy, leaving behind his wife Malaiammal, Son K. Subramanian and his daughter K. Jayalakshmi, who is the petitioner in the present writ petition. Since no member of her family is working and as her family has no source of income, she had made several representations requesting that she may be appointed on compassionate grounds. Since there was a ban in respect of appointment on compassionate grounds, the petitioner had not been appointed. However, the State Government, had not considered the request of the petitioner. Since the ban had been lifted, recently, the petitioner had filed an original application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.5266 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.27737 of 2006.

(3.) FROM the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is seen that the widow of Krishna Muthu Raja had been sanctioned a sum of Rs.10,000/- as family benefit fund, which was paid to her on 10.2.81. She was also admitted for a family pension of Rs.366/-, by the Accountant General, Chennai, for her livelihood. It is also seen that the petitioner was aged 44 years in the year 1996 when she had filed the original application in O.A.No.5266 of 1996, before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal. At present, she would be aged about 56 years, close to attaining the age of superannuation. Further, the father of the petitioner is said to have died in the year 1990, while the original application had been filed by the petitioner before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in the year 1996. Even though, it has been stated that the petitioner has been making several representations and that there was a ban on recruitment by the State Government, it cannot be said that there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Tribunal or the Courts of law to establish her claims.