V PARAMASIVAM Vs. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has stated that his father had died, on 4. 8. 1980, while in service. Subsequent to his death, the petitioner had submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that his brother, Dhanasekaran, was working as a watchman in the Government Department.

(2.) IT has been further stated that the Government had issued an order in G. O. Ms. No. 155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 16. 7. 1993, to enable the Government to appoint a family member of the deceased Government servant, taking into consideration the indigent circumstances of the family, even if another member of the family has been employed. Based on the said Government Order, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Salem. By the proceedings, dated 8. 8. 1994, the petitioner was directed to submit certain documents to establish that his claim can be considered, in accordance with G. O. Ms. No. 155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 16. 7. 1993. Even though the petitioner had submitted all the necessary documents, the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Salem, the second respondent herein, had rejected the request of the petitioner by his order, dated 25. 11. 1994. Based on the same ground, the Director of Agriculture, the first respondent herein, had passed an order on 19. 1. 1995, rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. In view of the Government Letter, dated 27. 7. 1994, clarifying that the cases, which have been already rejected prior to the issuance of the Government Order G. O. Ms. No. 155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 16. 7. 1993, need not be reopened. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred an original application in O. A. No. 4908 of 1996, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W. P. No. 22864 of 2006.

(3.) IN the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the father of the petitioner, Vadivel Nainar, who was working as a Field Demonstration Officer in Veerapandi Block, had died, on 4. 8. 1980. The request for compassionate appointment made by the petitioner had been rejected on the ground that the petitioner's elder brother was working as a watchman in the Government Headquarters Hospital in Salem. However, a Government Order came to be issued in G. O. Ms. No. 155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 16. 7. 1993, which states that when a dependent of the family is employed the factors to be ascertained are whether he is regularly employed and if he is actually supporting the family. If the person was employed even before the death of the Government servant and was living separately, without extending any help to the family of the deceased Government servant, then the cases of the other eligible dependents could be considered. However, the Government had issued a letter of clarification in Govt. Lr. No. 57630/q1/93-2, dated 27. 7. 1994, of the Labour and Employment Department, clarifying that the order issued in G. O. Ms. No. 155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 16. 7. 1993, would be applicable only from the date of the said Government Order, which is 16. 7. 1993 and the past cases need not be reopened. Therefore, the request of the petitioner was rejected based on the said letter as it had arisen before the issuance of the Government Order, on 16. 7. 1993.