The petitioner's father was employed as Health Supervisor in Government Primary Health Centre, Kothambady, Salem District. He expired on 03.08.1995, while he was in service.
2.The elder sister of the petitioner got an appointment as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Government Aided Private School, namely, CSI Middle School at Salem with effect from 01.11.1995.
3.While so, the petitioner made an application dated 28.11.1995, claiming compassionate appointment for the death of his father. His application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the impugned order dated 09.01.2002 by the first respondent.
4.The petitioner filed an Original Application No. 501 of 2002 to quash the same. On abolition of the Tribunal, the Original application was transferred to this Court and numbered as Writ Petition No.8454 of 2007.
5.Heard Mr.S.Narayanaswamy for Mr.Singaravelan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnu Priya, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
6.The impugned order dated 09.01.2002 of the first respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is on the ground that the family of the deceased servant is not in indigent circumstances, since his sister is employed in a Government Aided School.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the petitioner's sister got appointment as a Secondary Grade Teacher in CSI School at Salem on 01.11.1995, subsequently she got married on 08.05.1998 and therefore, she has not supported the family after her marriage.
8.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate states that when the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment in 1996, the petitioner's sister got appointment in the CSI School, which is an aided school, as a Secondary Grade Teacher.
9.The learned Government Advocate states that the impugned order was passed in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour & Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993. According to the learned Government Pleader, if any member of the family of the deceased Government Servant is in employment and supports the family, the dependents of the deceased Government servant are not entitled to seek compassionate appointment. It is stated that the petitioner's sister was admittedly in an employment from 01.11.1995, when the petitioner made an application seeking compassionate appointment. Hence, the first respondent passed the impugned order in terms of the said G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour & Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993.
10.I have considered both the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. It is admitted by the petitioner that his sister got appointment as a Secondary Grade Teacher in a Government Aided Private School on 01.11.1995 and he made an application for compassionate appointment only thereafter on 28.11.1995, while his father died on 03.08.1995. In these circumstances, the first respondent passed the impugned order rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment by the petitioner on the basis of the guidelines provided in the G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour & Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993.
11.In my view, there is no infirmity in the said impugned order. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's sister got married on 08.05.1998 and she did not support thereafter, is not relevant to determine the issue. When the petitioner admits that her sister supported his family after the death of his father, until her marriage, the first respondent is correct in passing the impugned order in rejecting the claim of the petitioner, based on G.O.M.S.No.155 referred to above. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
mps To
1.The State of Tamilnadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai 6