The eligibility for compassionate appointment can be established if a family member was employed before the death of the government servant but was living separately without extending help to the family.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order in Pa.Mu.No.7230/Aa1/08 dated 16.12.2008 and the consequential order in O.Mu.No.1913/Aa1/09 dated 29.03.2010 both passed by the first respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to appoint petitioner, on compassionate ground.)

1. The relief sought in this writ petition is to call for the records relating to the order in Pa.Mu.No.7230/Aa1/08 dated 16.12.2008 and the consequential order in O.Mu.No.1913/Aa1/09 dated 29.03.2010 both passed by the first respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents, to appoint the petitioner, on compassionate ground.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner's father Mr.K.Vaiyapuri had died on 01.01.1996 while he was working as Weaving Instructor in the Panchayat Union Middle School, Saravanapakkam of Tiruvennainalur Union in Villupuram District. The petitioner's father had two wives. The first wife of the petitioner's father had died as early as in the year 1972. Mr.Ramalingam, only son who born through the first wife of petitioner's deceased father got married in the year 1995 and he is living with his wife separately. The petitioner's mother is the second wife of his father. The petitioner and his two sisters were born through the second wife of the petitioner's deceased father.

2.1. After the death of petitioner's father, the said Ramalingam got a government job as Secondary Grade Teacher on 30.08.1997. The petitioner was 16 years old, when his father had died. Since the petitioner's elder brother Ramalingam is living with his family separately, he is not supporting the petitioner's family financially. The petitioner's mother made an application dated 15.09.1997 before the District Collector, Villupuram, seeking appointment to the petitioner under Compassionate Appointment Scheme, but, she was orally informed that her son (petitioner) was minor and therefore, he cannot be given appointment in Government Service.

2.2. After the petitioner attained the age of majority, he made a representation dated 03.09.2001 along with relevant documents, to the District Educational Officer, Tindivanam, seeking employment on compassionate ground, however, his representation was rejected by the first respondent vide proceedings dated 16.12.2008, on the ground that the family of indigent circumstances has to be given employment immediately after the death of a Government Servant and further, as per G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour and Employment Department dated 16.07.1993, already one of the members of the family is in employment and therefore, the application for compassionate appointment submitted by another member of the same family cannot be considered. The first respondent has indirectly stated about his elder brother Ramalingam who is in Government Service.

2.3. Actually, the petitioner's elder brother Ramalingam got appointment after the death of the petitioner's father but he was living with his wife separately, even when his father was alive. Moreover, he is not connected with the family of the petitioner since he is the son of the first wife of petitioner's father. So, explaining these facts, the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent to reconsider the proceedings dated 16.12.2008. But, the first respondent vide proceedings dated 29.03.2010, has rejected the claim of the petitioner for the following reasons:

(i) Petitioner was minor when his father had died and post cannot be kept vacant till he attains majority nor he could be appointed being a minor. So, as per G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour and Employment Department dated 16.07.1993, elder brother of the petitioner has got appointment in the year 1997.

(ii) Since the petitioner's elder brother Ramalingam is also a member of the petitioner's family, appointment cannot be given to petitioner.

2.4. The first respo