High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
K.S.Raju v. The Registrar - W.P.NO.8164 of 1996  RD-TN 217 (2 April 2002)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02/04/2002
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SHANMUGAM AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA W.P.NO.8164 of 1996
K.S.Raju .. Petitioner Vs.
Court of Small Causes,
Madras-104. .. Respondent Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.V.Bhiman
For respondent : Mr.S.T.S.Murthy,
Special Government Pleader :ORDER
(The order of the Court was made by P.SHANMUGAM,J) The writ petition challenges the order of the respondent, the Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Madras, dated 22.4.1996 rejecting the application of the petitioner dated 1.7.1994 seeking for compassionate appointment.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner's father K.Sundararajan was working as Junior Bailiff in the Court of Small Causes, Madras-104. He had been appointed in the service in the year 1972. He was a bachelor as per the service records and in the nomination form, he mentioned his father's name as nominee. Sundararajan did not intimate about his alleged marriage with Vijayalakshmi to the office. Sundararajan died while he was in service on 3.2.1980. Long thereafter, nearly 14 years later, the application dated 1.7.1994 was filed by the petitioner stating that at the time of demise of Sundararajan, he was five years old and his date of birth being 22.11.1975, he has attained majority and that he has no job and hence, he requested for appointment in a suitable post on compassionate ground. The said request was negatived by the respondent stating that there was no valid marriage between Tmt.S. Vijayalakshmi and the deceased Government Servant Thiru K.Sundararajan. The respondent further found that the deceased Sundararajan had failed to nominate his wife or his son as nominee and the petitioner also has not established that he was not an illegitimate child born to the deceased Government Servant. It is further stated in the order that there is no provision in the order to provide employment assistance to the illegitimate child on compassionate ground. The writ petition is against this order.
3. Learned counsel Mr.Bhiman strenuously argued inter alia contending that the petitioner's mother Vijayalakshmi has given a statement before the Administrative General of Tamil Nadu with reference to the retirement benefits of the deceased Sundararajan, conceding that the petitioner was born to Sundararajan and therefore, there is a clear evidence that he was a legitimate child of Sundararajan. He further submits that the petitioner had earlier filed two writ petitions and in W.P.No.10449 of 1995, wherein the petitioner has impleaded his mother as respondent, he sought for a direction to sanction the retirement benefits to him and the writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 22.06.2001 as the petitioner claimed that the same had become infructuous. There was another writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.2437 of 1996 seeking for a direction to appoint him in service on compassionate ground and the same was dismissed on 22.6.2001 along with W.P.No.10449 of 1995 on the ground that both the writ petitions have become infructuous. There was no reservation made for filing a fresh writ petition seeking appointment on compassionate ground.
4. learned Government Pleader, opposing the relief, submitted that the petitioner has not established that he is the son of late Sundararajan and on his own pleading, he has admitted that he is an illegitimate son of Sundararajan and hence, he is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground.
5. We have heard the counsel and considered the materials carefully.
6. The writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioner for similar relief was dismissed on his representation that both the writ petitions have become infructuous. He has not reserved right to file a fresh writ petition and therefore, on that ground, this writ petition for the same relief, is not maintainable.
7. On merits also, we find that the petitioner had waited for 14 long years to seek a compassionate appointment stating that his father Sundararajan died on 3.2.1980 and further Sundararajan's alleged wife Vijayalakshmi had not claimed any compassionate appointment either for herself or for her son at a later point of time. Secondly, even in his affidavit, the petitioner had described about his mother in the following words: "My father had intimacy with one Vijayalakshmi and because of that intimacy, I was born on 22.11.1975 at R.S.R.M. Hospital, Madras."
He further says that in the year 1978, when he was about three years old, his mother, the said Vijayalakshmi eloped with one Kesavan. That means, even before the death of Sundararajan, Vijayalakshmi was not living with him. According to the petitioner, she had intimacy only and therefore, it cannot be considered that they have lived as husband and wife so as to claim the retirement benefits. The petitioner has not chosen to file birth certificate to establish his parentage. It is further seen that the petitioner had filed W.P.No.10449 of 1995 impleading his own mother to prevent her from getting any retirement benefits. Before the Administrative General of Tamil Nadu, she is said to have filed a counter wherein she had pleaded that her father-in-law had obtained several signatures in blank papers assuring that he would get the retirement benefits of Sundararajan and pay it to her. Thereafter, the writ petition was dismissed and subsequently it is stated that her father-in-law had secured all the retirement benefits to the exclusion of the said Vijayalakshmi.
8. Thus, it is seen that the petitioner had discarded his own mother and refused the retirement benefits to be granted to her, and had characterised the relationship as intimacy with his father. On this slippery stand, we are clear that the petitioner has not established his case that Vijayalakshmi was his mother and that Sundararajan and Vijayalakshmi were living together as husband and wife and as the petitioner's father died while he was in service, he is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground as per the Government orders. The Government Orders referred now clearly say that compassionate appointment is available only to Class-II employees. G.O.Ms.No.73 dated 26.10.1987 which deals with the eligibility for appointment on compassionate ground says that "the dependant of the deceased Government servant, who dies in harness shall mean only the widow or the husband, son, unmarried daughter, legally adopted son or legally adopted unmarried daughter of the deceased Government Servant and they alone are eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds." The petitioner does not come under any one of the categories mentioned above and hence, he is not eligible for the appointment as per the Government Order.
9. Hence, both on law and on facts, the petitioner has not made out his case and we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the respondent. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.
The Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Madras-104. P.SHANMUGAM,J AND F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,J W.P.No.8164 of 1996
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.