R PUNITHA Vs. DIRECTOR, SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of rejection dated 2.9.2013 passed by the fourth respondent, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The writ petitioner is the third legal heir of the deceased employee. She has completed B.Com. (Computer Application), M.Com., and Diploma in Teachers Training and subsequently got married with a person and living with her husband, who is working in HDFC Bank. The wife of the deceased employee late Shri R.Rajarathinam and the mother of the writ petitioner, is receiving the family pension and residing separately. Under these circumstances, the authorities competent came to the conclusion that the family was not in penurious circumstances and therefore, they are not entitled to avail the benefit of the scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds. One of the conditions specifically mentioned in the scheme of compassionate appointment is that the family of the deceased employee must be in penurious circumstances. The very purpose and the object of the scheme is to mitigate the circumstances arising out of the sudden death of the Government employee, then the scheme of compassionate appointment is to be implemented only in respect of deserving families and to the deserving legal heirs of the deceased employee.

(3.) The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that there was an enormous delay on the part of the authorities to consider the case of the writ petitioner. There is a delay of 11 years even in considering the application submitted by the writ petitioner within the time limit prescribed in the scheme of compassionate appointment.