The petitioner is aggrieved by the delay in granting him compassionate appointment on account of the death of his father while working as Worker in the estate belonging to the respondent. In fact, the petitioner's father died in harness on 7.4.1998. Immediately thereafter, on 7.6.1999, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application under the Dying in Harness Scheme. Obviously, the petitioner was given an appointment as temporary worker for a period of 179 days as per Ext.P10. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the failure on the part of the respondent in granting him appointment on regular basis under the Dying in Harness Scheme. In the said context, it is relevant to refer to Ext.P8 . In Ext.P8, it is stated thus:-
Thus it is evident from Ext.P8 that considering the application submitted by the petitioner for appointment under compassionate appointment scheme his name was included at serial No.11 in the list prepared for appointment to the post of Peon under the respondent. It was further intimated that his claim for appointment against the said post would be taken up for consideration as and when vacancy occurs under the respondent. Taking into account the delay in the matter of regular appointment, he was given temporary appointment as per Ext.P10. Thus it is obvious that the respondent has taken timely action on Ext.P4 application submitted by the petitioner for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme. In such circumstances, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition directing the respondent to take appropriate steps in the light of the decision taken by them in Ext.P8.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/ W.P.(C).24896/13 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT W.P.(C).24896/13 4 September,2010