IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a minor can seek compassionate appointment after attaining majority and that the application for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected solely on the ground of delay.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order issued vide Na.Ka.No.31926/M4/09 dated 22.12.2009 issued by the Commissioner, Fisheries Department, Teynampet, Chennai – 6, the first respondent herein and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider and appoint the applicant in any suitable post on compassionate grounds.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order issued vide Na.Ka.No.31926/M4/09, dated 22.12.2009, issued by the Commissioner, Fisheries Department, Teynampet, Chennai – 6 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider and appoint the applicant in any suitable post on compassionate grounds.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner’s father R.Gnanasekaran was employed as Junior Engineer in the office of the Fisheries Department. He died on 01.01.1998 while in service. Petitioner's mother predeceased her father on 20.09.1989. At the time of her father’s death, she was aged about 11 years and her brother G.Sathiyan was aged about 30 years, but he was suffering from mental depression. Fourth respondent is the second wife of the petitioner’s father R.Gnanasekaran. After the death of petitioner’s father, serious disputes arose between the fourth respondent and petitioner. Fourth respondent obstructed respondents 1 to 3 from disbursing the terminal benefits to the petitioner and other legal heirs. Petitioner’s father did not own any movable or immovable properties. Petitioner and her brother were surviving on the mere pension received by their grand mother. After long struggle, part of the terminal benefits were paid to the legal heirs on 13.04.2009. Fourth respondent is working as Secondary Grade Teacher at Panchayat Union Medical School. It is learnt that the family pension had been sanctioned to the fourth respondent vide order No.AG (A&E)/PN P 27/3/G 12 – 368/FP/2008 – 2009/4432,4433, 4434, dated 30.07.2008 in PPO No.FC/555434 FTS. Petitioner’s father died leaving her and her brother in harness. Petitioner's brother was suffering from several mental depression. Petitioner and her brother were literally on the streets and suffering hard to eke out their livelihood. Number of representations were sent to respondents 1 to 3 from 23.02.1998 onwards seeking compassionate appointment. Without considering any of the representations, petitioner’s representation was rejected and the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.31926/M4/09, dated 22.12.2009 was passed. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is filed.

3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the rejection of the petitioner’s representation for compassionate appointment on the ground that the application was not submitted within a period of three years from the date of the death of the father is not correct for the reason that a minor cannot be appointed in a Government service. Only after obtaining majority, one can apply for compassionate appointment. Admittedly, petitioner was minor at the time of the death of her father and therefore, her representation after obtaining majority, seeking compassionate appointment should be favourably considered.

4. That apart, he submitted that petitioner’s brother had already submitted the representation immediately after the death of their father seeking benefits due to his father, on account of the death of their father while in service. That application was sent on 05.05.1998 within a period of three years from the date of death of their father. Therefore, the claim that compassionate appointment was not sought for as per the prescribed rules cannot be accepted.

5. In support of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a minor can seek compassionate appointment after attaining majority, the following judgments a