(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.) This appeal by the District Collector, Madurai District and the Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, is directed against the order dated 02.12.2016, made in a writ petition filed by the respondent herein.
2. The respondent sought for setting aside the order passed by the first respondent on 01.10.2014 whereby the request made by the respondent for grant of appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that it has been submitted after five years of the demise of the employee. The respondent's father was working as Village Administrative Officer and died in harness on 11.07.2000. The respondent's sister submitted an application on 17.08.2000 requesting for appointment on compassionate ground.
3. It is not in dispute that the said application is pending and no orders were passed and subsequently, it appears that the sister of the respondent was willing to forego her right and therefore, another representation was made on 04.05.2005 requesting that the appointment may be offered to the respondent. This representation was not considered till 23.07.2008. This was due to the ban imposed by the Government for appointing candidates in Government jobs. Thereafter, the application stood rejected on the ground that it has been made beyond the period of five years after the demise of the employee.
4. The Writ Court after considering the case of the respondent and the contentions advanced by the appellants, observed that the order of rejection of the application for appointment on compassionate ground was on two grounds, namely, the respondent cannot make a fresh application when the earlier application submitted by his mother on behalf of his sister, is pending and secondly, there is a delay in submitting the application.
5. The Writ Court took into consideration the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Mohanambal v. The Director, Land and Survey Department reported in 2011 (1) CTC 349, and held that the second application/representation made by the respondent/writ petitioner should be treated as an extension of the first application/continuation of the first application and therefore, held that the question of delay does not arise.
6. We are in full agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge as admittedly, the application submitted on behalf of the daughter of the deceased employee was never considered or rejected till the respondent made a request to offer employment to him. Thus, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. .