Illegitimate children are entitled to compassionate appointment benefits and should not be rejected as illegitimate based on the status of their parents' marriage.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the second respondent, dated 20.05.2014, whereby her request for providing employment on compassionate ground, was rejected.

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-

Her father was working as Office Assistant at the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur, for more than 20 years and died on 21.01.2005. Her father married one Muthukannu and as she was not having any children, he married petitioner's mother, by name, Manimekalai and through her he had two children, namely, the petitioner and another daughter. Pension was sanctioned to both the petitioner's mother and the said Muthukannu through the decree obtained from the District Munsif, Karur in O.S.No.126 of 2006. The petitioner's mother gave representation to the respondents on various dates from 13.02.2006 to 25.08.2011 seeking for compassionate appointment. The petitioner also gave a representation on 13.09.2011. The first respondent rejected the same on 02.08.2013 on the reason that the petitioner had not completed 18 years. The petitioner filed W.P(MD)No.3863 of 2014, wherein this Court has directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. Thereafter, the present impugned order came to be passed on 20.05.2014 stating that the petitioner being the daughter born through the void marriage, is not entitled to the relief and also on the reason that the application was not filed within a period of three years of the death of her father.

3. A counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent, wherein it is stated that the petitioner being the daughter born through the void marriage is not entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the reasons assigned by the second respondent cannot be sustained, since those reasons were already considered by this Court in other decisions and were rejected. In support of such submissions, he relied on a decision of this Court made in W.P(MD)No.7560 of 2003 dated 31.03.2009 and W.P(MD)No.937 of 2013 dated 18.03.2014.

5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that in view of the various circulars issued by the Government, illegitimate children are not entitled to get the compassionate appointment and therefore, the petitioner's request was rightly rejected.

6. Heard both sides.

7. The petitioner is seeking for compassionate appointment in pursuant to the death of her father. It is seen that the petitioner was minor at the time of the death of her father. However, it is stated by the petitioner in the affidavit that her mother made repeated representations commencing from 13.02.2006 to 25.08.2011. To the said specific averments made by the petitioner, there is no specific denial in the counter affidavit. Therefore, it cannot be said that the application filed by the petitioner is the first application from the family that too, after a period of three years. At any event, the petitioner was minor at the time of death of her father. She filed the application on 30.09.2011 and therefore, it cannot be said that the application is belated one. Moreover, when the petitioner has approached this Court earlier and filed the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.3863 of 2014, seeking for a Mandamus to provide for a Government Job on compassionate ground, this Court, by an order dated 05.03.2014, directed the authorities to consider her representation and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law.

8. Considering the fact that the mother had already made application and the petitioner was minor at that time and also the fact that the petitioner, after attaining the majority, had made an application, it cannot be said that the application is belated one. Therefore, such reasons stated by the second respondent cannot be sustained. In this aspect it is useful to refer to paragraph 7 and 8 of the order made in W.P(MD)No.937 of 2013 dated 18.03.2014.

“7. I