K BALAKRISHNAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the son of Late S.Kaliyaperumal, who worked as a Higher Grade Assistant Teacher in V.Kudikadu Panchayat Union Elementary School of Cuddalore District. THE said S.Kaliyaperumal died on 15.8.1975, while in service under the third respondent.

(2.) AS per the scheme introduced in G.O.Ms.No,225, Labour Department, dated 15.2.1972, the petitioner is stated to be entitled for employment on compassionate grounds. It is seen that when an application was made to the third respondent on 9.7.1997, the third respondent scrutinized the records and recommended to the second respondent for providing a job, by his letter dated 21.9.1997. It appears that the second respondent/District Collector also, in his turn, has made his recommendation to the first respondent on 26.6.1999. Thereafter, there was no order passed and after a complaint was sent to the Chief Minister's Cell also there was no step taken by the respondents and the petitioner, therefore, approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No,6741 of 2001. However, the said Original Application was dismissed by the Tribunal on 18.10.2001, stating that the petitioner is not eligible.

(3.) IN N.Panneerselvam v. Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Chennai and Others, (2009) 1 MLJ 54, while considering a similar issue, this Court has held that even children born through illegitimate marriage are entitled to the benefits as the legal heirs of the deceased employee and they cannot be denied the right of compassionate appointment. This Court, after referring to a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in H.Anwar Basha v. Registrar General (INcharge), (2008) 5 MLJ 795, has held as follows: "5. Law is well settled that even if the second marriage of the petitioner's father is void, as per the Hindu Marriages Act, the children born through such void marriage cannot be held to be illegitimate. IN the factual situation here, the first respondent itself has admitted that in respect of the pension and DCRG, which are property rights, the petitioner is conferred such right by treating him as legal heir of the erstwhile employee of the first respondent. IN such circumstances, the strange conclusion by the first respondent that the petitioner would not be entitled for compassionate appointment simply because his father has married the second wife which is a void marriage. Such reason is absolutely not sustainable."