Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2427 (MAD)

S. G. Rajan v. The Director of School Education

2009-07-16

M.JAICHANDREN

body2009
Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioners mother, late Mrs.S. Lakkupadmavathy, was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the Panchayat Union Primary School, Thiruvadanai. She had died, on 24. 1992, while in service. The petitioner and his family was entirely dependant upon the income drawn by his mother. After the death of the petitioners mother the entire family was living in indigent circumstances. In such circumstances, the petitioner, who was possessing a B.Com. Degree, at the time of the death of his mother, had applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. Even though the petitioners application had been accepted and his name had been entered at No.802 in the seniority list, for being appointed on compassionate grounds, no such appointment was given. Later, the request of the petitioner had been rejected by the respondent, by his proceedings, dated 27. 2000. The reasons stated by the respondent for rejecting the application of the petitioner is that, at the time of the death of the petitioners mother, his father was in Government service and therefore, the petitioner is disqualified from being considered for appointment on compassionate grounds, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.998, Labour and Employment Department, dated 15. 1981. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been living, separately and that he was not dependant on his father, for his living, at the time of the death of his mother Mrs.S.Lakkupadmavathy. In such circumstances, the request of the petitioner, for appointment on compassionate grounds, ought to have been considered by the respondent, favourably. 4. Even though the learned counsel had raised such a contention, nothing has been shown on behalf of the petitioner to substantiate such a claim. Further, the petitioner has not been in a position to show that he was entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 17. 1993, prescribing certain norms for such appointments. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is devoid of merits. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs.