ORDER

This writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na Ka No.7058/B1/2013 dated 14.07.2014 and consequent proceedings of the second respondent in Na Ka 726/C 2014 dated 25.07.2014 and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and regularize his service from the date of his appointment.

2.It is stated that the petitioner's father by name Muthukrishnan was appointed as Lab Assistant in the office of the second respondent in the year 1963, at that time the college was run by a Private Management. Subsequently, the second respondent college was taken over by the Tamil Nadu Government in the year 1965 and it is admitted that the college is now run by the Government of Tamil Nadu.

2(i).The petitioner's father died on 07.03.2000, while he was in service as Store Keeper, leaving behind his first wife by name Raniammal @ Gnanammal and the petitioner's mother, who is the second wife, the petitioner and his two sisters, who are the children of Muthukrishnan, born through his second wife.

2(ii).After the death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Since the first wife by name Raniammal gave an application for getting retirement benefits, the second respondent approached the Court to recognize the second wife before making her eligible for getting retirement benefits. The petitioner filed an application for succession certificate in O.P.No.40 of 2012 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur. The succession certificate was granted to the petitioner, based on the compromise between the parties. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application to the second respondent for getting a job on compassionate ground. After considering the succession certificate, the first respondent appointed the petitioner as Junior Assistant in the second respondent college, by order dated 30.11.2010. The petitioner also joined in the second respondent college as Junior Assistant and continued in service. When the proposal for regularization of service of the petitioner was sent to the first respondent by the second respondent, the first respondent returned the same for want of some particulars. Thereafter, the first respondent by the impugned order 14.07.2014 terminated the service of the petitioner on the ground that his appointment on compassionate ground, was contrary to G.O.Ms.No.34 Labour and Employment Q1 Department, dated 16.04.2002. The reason for denying regularization is that the petitioner is the son of the deceased employee through the second wife and that therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for a job on compassionate ground. Pursuant to the order of the first respondent , the second respondent terminated the service of the petitioner as Junior Assistant by citing the impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated 14.07.2014. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is the son of the deceased Government employee is a dependent and entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased, even though he is a son born through an invalid marriage of the deceased. The learned counsel also relied upon a few judgments of this Court to support his contention. In the case of N.PANNEERSELVAM -VS- THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI, reported in

2008(6) CTC 806, this Court has held as follows:

“5. Law is well settled that even if the second marriage of the petitioners father is void, as per Te 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, t