V.HARISH Vs. STATE REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of rejection passed by the third respondent in proceedings dated 23.11.2017 in relation to the claim of the Writ Petitioner for compassionate appointment is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner states that the father of the Writ Petitioner late U.Venkatachalapathy was employed as a Sanitary Worker in the second respondent Corporation and passed away on 22.12.2009 while he was in service. At the time of the demise of the father of the Writ Petitioner, he was a minor and therefore he was not eligible to submit his application seeking compassionate appointment. The Writ Petitioner attained the age of majority only during the year 2016 and submitted application for compassionate appointment. However, the case of the Writ Petitioner was not considered for compassionate appointment on the ground that the application was not submitted within a reasonable period of time.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the mother of the Writ Petitioner also passed away. Thus the Writ Petitioner was paid only minimum family pension upto the age of 21 years and now he is in the process of searching job.