A PRAKASH Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The orders of rejection dated 03.7.2008 and 31.05.2010 issued by the respondents in relation to the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment are under the challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a submission that the father of the writ petitioner late S.Arockiasamy, was employed in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Agri Engineering, Pudhukottai, and passed away on 21.10.1994, while he was in service.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the application seeking compassionate appointment was submitted initially on 15.02.1995, well within the time limit prescribed by the Government. The said representation was enclosed in Page No.2 of the typed set filed along with this writ petition. This Court has carefully perused the said representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 15.02.1995. The signature of the writ petitioner is in verna cular language and the name has been stated as [1] 15.2.95. However, no acknowledgment or proof in support of the representation has been produced by the writ petitioner. Again, the learned counsel referred to the page 3 of the typed set of papers, wherein, representation dated 25.01.2000 is enclosed, in which, the signature of the writ petitioner has been found as A.Fapd;tpf;Nlhhpah in the second application. There is a variation in respect of the initial of the writ petitioner. Thus, in the absence of any proof or records by the respondent in any of the proceedings, the first application submitted by the writ petitioner on 15.02.1995 cannot be trusted upon by this Court.