Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is challenging the order of dismissal passed by the third respondent, in his proceedings, dated 31.03.2008 as well as the proceedings of the second and third respondents, dated 19.02.2008 and 16.03.2008 resulting in passing of the order of dismissal. 2. The case of the petitioner is that his father A.Samuvel was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the Panchayat Union School. He died on 18.11.1972 while he was in service. His father first married to one Thavamani. She voluntarily withdrew from the matrimonial home leaving two children with his father. Thereafter, his father married another person namely, Rajammal, the mother of the petitioner herein. Therefore, the petitioner applied for an employment on compassionate ground after the death of the father. Consequently, the petitioner was appointed as 'Night Watchman' on 02.02.1989. Then he was promoted as 'Office Assistant' on 24.01.1992 and further promoted as 'Junior Assistant' on 30.03.1993. The petitioner is working as a Cashier at Sattur Panchayat Union Office, Sattur. On 19.03.2008, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice, dated 16.03.2008 calling for an explanation as to why his service should not be terminated on the ground that the petitioner born through the second wife is not entitled to the compassionate appointment. The petitioner gave his explanation on 25.03.2008. Even thereafter, without considering the fact that the petitioner is entitled to be treated like any other legitimate children, the impugned order of termination came to be passed only on the reason that the petitioner was born through the second wife with whom there was no valid marriage performed. 3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit and stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.34, Labour and Employment Department, dated 15.04.2002, the Government strictly prohibited the illegal children from getting appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, the petitioner having been born through the second marriage, which was illegal, his appointment was cancelled and he was dismissed from service. 4. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 5. The issue involved in this case is as to whether the petitioner born through the second wife of his deceased father is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment and whether G.O.Ms.No.34, dated 15.04.2002 is applicable against the petitioner. 4. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 5. The issue involved in this case is as to whether the petitioner born through the second wife of his deceased father is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment and whether G.O.Ms.No.34, dated 15.04.2002 is applicable against the petitioner. Such question was already considered by this court in a decision reported in 2008(6) CTC 806 in the case of N.Panneerselvam vs. The Secretary to Government, Public Works Department and two others. The learned Judge, after considering all the facts and circumstances as well as by considering the Hon'ble Division Bench order reported in 2004(4)MLJ 177 in the case of Geetha Ramani vs. the District Educational Officer, Kancheepuram, has held at para 5 to 9 as follows:- “5. Law is well settled that even if the second marriage of the petitioner's father is void, as per the 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, the strange conclusion by the first respondent that the petitioner would not be entitled for Compassionate Appointment simply because his father has married the second wife which is a void marriage. Such reason is absolutely not sustainable. 6. In this context, it will be useful to refer to a Division Bench Judgment, headed by Mr. Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Mr. Justice V. Dhanapalan, in the case of H. Anwar Basha v. Registrar General (Incharge), 2008 (5) MLJ 795 , wherein it is held by relying upon the various other earlier judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court that what is required to be considered for compassionate ground appointment is that the petitioner is a dependent of the deceased Government Servant. It is also held that the son of the deceased person remains to be the son whether he is legitimate or illegitimate son of the parents. The illegitimacy of the marriage between the petitioner's father and the petitioner's mother cannot stand as a stumbling block for the dependent to get employment. It is also held that the son of the deceased person remains to be the son whether he is legitimate or illegitimate son of the parents. The illegitimacy of the marriage between the petitioner's father and the petitioner's mother cannot stand as a stumbling block for the dependent to get employment. The Division Bench has held as follows: “I. “Even on assuming that the marriage is irregular or void, if the petitioner is a dependant of the deceased Government Servant, he would be entitled for the benefit.” II. “The eligibility criteria prescribed to get employment assistance to families of the deceased Government Servants would make it clear that the dependants of the deceased Government Servant include the son and it does not denote whether the son should be legitimate or illegitimate son of the parents” III. “In order to achieve the object of providing employment assistance to the bereaved family, it would be necessary to examine whether the dependant is supporting the family to mitigate the sufferings of that family, relieving the bereaved family from the indigent circumstances. Therefore when the object is met, the question of whether the delinquent dependent is a legitimate or illegitimate legal heir cannot be a stumbling block for the dependant to get employment.” 7. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Geetha Ramani v. The District Educational Officer, Kancheepuram , 2004 (4) MLJ 177 , presided over by Mr. Justice P.K. Misra and Mr. Justice S.R. Singharavelu, while referring to the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 560 dated 03.08.1997 wherein it is made clear that the Compassionate Appointment shall not be extended to the children born to a second wife. The Division Bench has held as follows: “The intention under the G.O. issued for employment on compassionate ground is to give protection to the members of the family of the deceased employee. By no stretch of imagination, it can be stated that the children born through the second wife, even though the second marriage is void, are not members of such family”. 8. Another un-reported judgment of this Court in the case of K. Velankannan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and two others, W.P. No. 16211 of 2007, dated 30.08.2007 by Mr. Justice Chockalingam by referring to similar G.O.Ms. 8. Another un-reported judgment of this Court in the case of K. Velankannan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and two others, W.P. No. 16211 of 2007, dated 30.08.2007 by Mr. Justice Chockalingam by referring to similar G.O.Ms. No. 34, Labour and Employment/01 Department, dated 16.04.2002 this Court has held that there cannot be two criteria for the purpose to give protection for Family Pension and DCRG and deny the same for Compassionate Appointment. In the said decision in paragraph 6 it is held as follows: “6. Contrary to the above, learned counsel for the State would submit that in the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the son of the deceased employee through his second wife and in the G.O.Ms. No. 34 Labour and Employment/01 Department dated 16.04.2002, it is made clear that the children born out of the void marriages are entitled for the benefit in respect of the property of the deceased Government Servant i.e., Family Pension and Death- cum -Retirement Gratuity and that compassionate appointment cannot be equated to the status of the property of the deceased. Under such circumstances, while it is an admitted fact that he is the son through the second wife, he is not entitled to have the appointment, but he got appointment. Hence, the cancellation of appointment made by the second respondent was perfectly correct and it has got to be dismissed”. 9. Therefore, the law is well settled that as far as the children born through the illegitimate marriages are concerned, they are legitimate and entitled for the benefits. On the facts of this case as I have stated earlier there is no reason for denying the right of Compassionate Appointment to the petitioner while admitting that the petitioner was the dependent but at the same time accepting him the benefit of the property rights like that of the Family Pension and DCRG.” 6. Considering all these facts and circumstances and by following the above said order passed by the learned single Judge reported in 2008(6) CTC 806, in the case of N.Panneerselvam vs. The Secretary to Government, Public Works Department Secretariat, Chennai and two others, which squarely covers the matter in hand, I hold that the petitioner cannot be dismissed from service solely on the reason that he is the son of the 2nd wife and not entitled to compassionate appointment. Moreover, in this case, after nearly 19 years of making such appointment, the respondents initiated proceedings against the petitioner, which again totally unjustifiable and sustainable. Considering all theses facts, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. 7. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner and disburse all the monetary benefits, which were withheld so far to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.