S.SARAVANAKUMAR Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition had been filed by the petitioner in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned letters dtd. 15/2/2012 and 20/6/2012 issued by the third respondent in his office Letter No. 001325/756/Ni.Pi.1 E.Ni.Vu.1/Ko. Compassionate Appointment/2012, and in Letter No. 111906/116/Ni.Pi.1/E.Ni.Vu/Ko. Compassionate Appointment/2012, quash the same and direct the respondents to reconsider the request of the petitioner's mother Sampooranam and the petitioner for compassionate appointment to the petitioner in the light of B.P.No. 17 dtd. 1/11/2011.

(2.) The father of the writ petitioner by name Shanmugam was working as Foreman in the office of the Assistant Engineer, O and M, TNEB at Puthunatham. He died on 30/8/1999. He left behind his wife, two sons and daughter. The petitioner herein was 9 years at the time of death of his father. His mother submitted an application seeking compassionate employment on 8/2/1990. She also gave another representation on 4/2/1999. This was rejected by letter dtd. 15/6/1999 on the ground that the application was not submitted within three years from the date of death. His mother sent a further representation to the Chief Minister's Cell. That representation was rejected on 16/10/1999. His mother then filed W.P.No. 8322 of 2001. This Court was pleased to allow the Writ Petition and quashed the letters rejecting her representation and directed the third respondent to also include the name of the petitioner in the register maintained for compassionate appointment. This was by order dtd. 9/10/2002. Thereafter the third respondent filed W.A.No. 1507 of 2005. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the Writ Appeal. The relevant portion of the order in the Writ Appeal is as follows:-

(3.) Thereafter the present petitioner had given a representation on 18/1/2011 seeking compassionate appointment. The third respondent sent a reply dtd. 31/5/2011. By the said reply, the representation of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that the Writ Appeal filed by the mother seeking compassionate employment had been dismissed. The petitioner gave a further representation on 6/2/2012. In the said representation, he enclosed the legal heirship certificate obtained at the time of the death of his father to point out that he was aged 9 years on that date. He also pointed out that subsequently there had been decisions rendered by this Court granting compassionate employment to similarly placed applicants. The third respondent once again issued a reply dtd. 15/2/2012 which is practically a repetition of the earlier reply dtd. 1/11/2011. In the said reply, it was stated that since the Writ Appeal filed by the mother had been dismissed, it was not possible to grant employment. This order dtd. 15/2/2012 is one of the orders impugned in this Writ Petition. The petitioner then gave a further representation on 14/3/2012. In this representation, the petitioner again sought compassionate employment. This representation was rejected by letter dtd. 20/6/2012 which is also impugned in the present Writ Petition.