Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and the learned Government Advocate.

.2. The writ petitioner was born to one Narayanasamy through his second wife and this fact is not in dispute. While the father of the petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant in the Public Works Department of the Government, in the first respondent, he died. Thereafter the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground by the third respondent on 16.07.1997 as Typist on temporary basis. The petitioner joined the said post on 23.07.1997 and he has been in the said capacity for the past eleven years on temporary basis. The petitioner has made repeated representations for the purpose of regularization of his service and the same has not been considered by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner was not born to said Narayanasamy through his legally wedded wife. It is seen that the first and third respondents have written to the second respondent, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, vide Letter (MS) No.34, dated 16.04.2002 seeking for a clarification as to whether the children born out of void marriage who are entitled for Family Pension and Death cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) are also entitled for compassionate ground appointment.

3. A reference to the letter shows that the first respondent while seeking clarification from the Constitution Authority, namely, the second respondent, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, has considered that the petitioner who was born through the second wife of an employee of the first respondent and therefore assuming that the said marriage is void, however accepted that the petitioner was entitled for the benefits like the Family Pension, DCRG treating the same as property right and while denying the rights of the petitioner for continuing on compassionate ground and regularizing the service of the petitioner herein, since he is an illegitimate son of the employee. The present writ petition is filed for a direction against the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner. But the factual situation that the appointment of the petitioner as compassionate ground as Typist from 23.07.1997 and his continuation in the said post as of date is not in dispute.

4. The only issue to be decided is as to whether the petitioner is not eligible for regularization for the simple reason that the petitioner who was given compassionate appointment was born to an erstwhile employee of the first respondent through his second wife on the basis that the marriage between the erstwhile employee of the first respondent and his second wife as a void marriage.

.5. Law is well settled that even if the second marriage of the petitioner’s father is void, as per the Hindu Marriages Act, the children born through such void marriage cannot be held to be illegitimate. In the factual situation here, the first respondent itself has admitted that in respect of the pension and DCRG, which are property rights the petitioner is conferred such right by treating him as legal heir of the erstwhile employee of the first respondent. In such circumstances, the strange conclusion by the first respondent that the petitioner would not be entitled for compassionate appointment simply because his father has married the second wife which is a void marriage. Such reason is absolutely not sustainable.

6. In this context, it will be useful to refer to a Division Bench Judgment, headed by Mr. Justice S.J.Mokhopadhaya and Mr. Justice V.Dhanapalan, in the case of H.Anwar Basha v. Registrar General (Incharge) reported in (2008) 5 MLJ 795 wherein it is held by relying upon the various other earlier judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court that what is required to be considered for compassionate ground appointment is that the petitioner is a dependent of the deceased Government Servant. It is also held that the son of the deceased person remains to