G.ANITHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The father of the petitioner who was working as a police constable (Driver) in the police department, died while in service in 1992 leaving behind the petitioner, her mother and sister apart from her. The petitioner was aged about 9 years at that time of death of her father. The petitioner's mother made a request for compassionate appointment in the year 1992. Since the same was not considered till 1999, she made another request to consider her atleast in the Sweeper category. Again in 2000, the petitioner's mother made a representation seeking consideration of the petitioner's case of the compassionate appointment, since she was sick.

(2.) The fourth respondent thereafter called for the relevant certificates of the petitioner vide his proceedings dated 20.04.2001. The fourth respondent also sent a proposal to appoint the petitioner as a Junior Assistant on 23.05.2001. Since nothing was heard from the department, the petitioner made representation to the District Collector, Tirunelveli and thereafter, she was informed by a proceeding dated 07.02.2006 that her request for compassionate appointment was rejected even in the year 2003. She made further representation on 25.07.2006 and a consequential rejection order was passed on 10.06.2008 stating that there is no provision for reconsideration. The petitioner made another representation on 27.05.2015, pointing out the applications, seeking compassionate appointment. The said request of the petitioner was rejected by the fourth respondent on 20.07.2015 on the ground that since the application of the mother K.Govindhammal was pending consideration for grant of minimum relief for the family of the deceased Government servant, who died in 1992, even in the year 2015, the petitioner's application could not be considered. This order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.10926 of 2016. This Court, after considering the grievance of the petitioner, relying upon the judgment in S.Ramakrishnan Vs. Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, reported in 2016 (2) MLJ 570, concluded that the order of rejection on the ground that the petitioner's mother application is pending, is not acceptable.

(3.) The learned Single Judge namely (Hon'ble Justice S.S.Sundar) had observed as follows:-