G. SUDHAKAR Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the impugned proceedings dated 05.03.2013 passed by the second respondent/the Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police, Trichy, confirming the earlier order dated 23.06.2011 rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted his application within a period of three years from the date of death of his father i.e. on 05.06.2001.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by referring to a communication dated 27.02.2003 of the Director General of Police, Chennai/first respondent herein, submitted that the petitioner had made application on 17.09.2002 itself, which is just 1 year 3 months from the date of death of his father, therefore, the respondent, having accepted the application dated 17.09.2002 of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground, has wrongly rejected the request of the petitioner as though the petitioner had made an application only on 16.06.2005. It is further contended that while passing the impugned order, neither the communication dated 27.02.2003 of the first respondent has been referred to nor the first application dated 17.09.2002 of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground has been referred by the respondent in the impugned order, therefore, the very premise on which the rejection has been made not only shows the non-application of mind, but also it is a deliberate omission of facts with regard to application made by the petitioner on 17.09.2002 itself.

(3.) It is further submitted that after the death of the breadwinner, both the wives of the deceased raised a claim for disbursal of retirement benefits, however, due to the counter claim of the second wife, there was a delay in settling the retirement benefits. Finally, the Accountant General (A &E), Chennai, vide his proceedings dated 06.05.2008, had returned the pension proposal stating that two wives shall be directed to settle their eligibility through Court of law, besides submitting the proof for performing marriage with the deceased along with the revised legal heir certificate if there is no dispute between them. Thereafter, both the wives have entered into a compromise agreement through a bond dated 07.07.2009 by settling the issue to the effect that the pensionary benefits shall be divided equally for both the wives and pension shall be paid to the 2nd wife Tmt.Sumathy and that compassionate appointment shall be given to the petitioner who is the son of the first wife. Subsequently, by accepting the compromise agreement, necessary authorization was also issued by the office of the Accountant General vide its proceedings dated 13.01.2010 for disbursal of the pensionary benefits. Thus, it is contented, when both the wives of the deceased have settled their issues with regard to pensionary benefits as well as appointment on compassionate ground, the respondent cannot take a different stand stating that the petitioner has made an application only after the prescribed period of three years from the date of death of his deceased father. Therefore, he prayed for a direction to the respondents to accept the application made by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground.