V JAMBAGALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions have been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the third respondent in connection with the order passed by him in his proceedings No.L.Dis.No,7618/G/97, dated 16.9.97 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to pay all the service benefits of the deceased Dr.D. Venkateswarlu including compassionate appointment to the second applicant. Common Order: The petitioners have filed O.A.Nos.888 and 964 of 1998, seeking to challenge an order of the third respondent, dated 16.09.1997. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matters stood transferred to this court and were renumbered as W.P.Nos.37905 and 37693 of 2006.

(2.) W.P.No,37905 of 2006, which arose out of O.A.No,888 of 1998, is filed by one Jambagalakshmi and two of her children, namely V.Jayaprakash and Suganya. W.P.No,37693 of 2006, which arose out of O.A.No,964 of 1998, is filed by V.Jayaprakash, who is the son of the first petitioner in the other W.P. In both the cases, the challenge is to the very same order, dated 16.09.97 passed by the third respondent, declining the claim for compassionate appointment on the ground of the death of Dr.D.Venkateswaralu, who was employed in the Supervisory Unit of the National Maleria Eradication Programme, functioning under the control of the third respondent. It is not clear as to why the second writ petition was filed against the very same order when the first writ petition itself challenges the same. In the second W.P. (O.A. No. 964 of 1998) against column No,7, the pendency of the previous O.A. was not mentioned and the conduct of the petitioner in this regard is highly objectionable.

(3.) WITH reference to the claim made by the petitioners, it was stated that totally six women have claimed to be the wife of late D.Venkateswaralu and he was facing a disciplinary action on grounds of bigamous marriage contravening the Government Servant Conduct Rules. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the reply affidavit, the following averments have been made by the first respondent: