THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.19508 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 Petitioners filed the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondent to provide employment to the first petitioner on compassionate grounds for the death of late K. Nirmala mother of the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 and wife of the second petitioner instead of asking the first petitioner to get a declaration that the first petitioner’s name as R. Yugandhar @ R. Yuvraj. 2 Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition, as per the affidavit sworn to by the first petitioner,may be stated as follows: The second petitioner herein who is the father of the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 and husband of the said deceased Nirmala retired on medical grounds in respondent Devastanam in the year 1994. Thereafter his wife i.e. Nirmala got employment in Respondent Devasthanam as Sweeper on compassionate grounds on 01.02.1995. Thereafter, the said Nirmala i.e. mother of the petitioners 1, 3 and 4, died on 22.01.2010 while she was in service of the respondent leaving behind all the petitioners as her legal heirs. During her lifetime the said Nirmala mentioned the names of her sons in nomination for death cum retirement benefits viz. gratuity on 24.03.1997. Thereafter the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 approached the respondent Devasthanam for providing appointment to the first petitioner on compassionate grounds and also for providing death benefits of their mother. The petitioners 2 to 4 have also given no objection for providing employment to the first petitioner. 3 Now the grievance of the first petitioner who seeks employment is that he is called as ‘Yuvraj’ in the house, but his actual name was mentioned as ‘R.Yugandhar’ in the school records. The Mandal Revenue Officer also issued family members certificate of late K. Nirmala W/o R. Babu, which shows the name of the first petitioner as ‘R. Yughandhar @ R. Yuvaraj’. But, upon his representation, the respondent issued a letter to him on 21.05.2011 directing him to produce the declaration from the competent civil court to the effect that his name is ‘R. Yugandhar @ R. Yuvraj’ for taking necessary action in the matter. Hence the present Writ Petition. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the actual name of the first petitioner is ‘R. Yugandhar’ but in the house he is called as ‘Yuvraj’ and on that ground as his name is not tallying; that all the school certificates and the family members certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer would clearly go to show that his name is ‘R.Yugandhar @ R.Yuvraj’ and that the other family members are also not objecting for that and hence there is no dispute that he i.e. first petitioner is the son of R.Babu and K.Nirmala; but, the respondent directed the first petitioner to obtain a declaration from the competent civil court; hence he prayed to declare the action of the respondent in directing the petitioner to get a declaration from the civil court as arbitrary and to consequently direct the respondent to provide employment to the first petitioner. 5 On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent contended that since the name of the first petitioner is not tallying with the records, he was directed to produce declaration from the competent civil court and therefore the impugned order needs no interference from this court. 6 No doubt all the certificates produced by the first petitioner would go to show that his name is ‘R.Yugandhar’. The family members certificate issued by the Tahsildar would also go to show the name of the first petitioner as ‘R. Yugandhar @ R. Yuvarj’. Further, the family members also did not object to consider the case of the first petitioner for giving employment on compassionate grounds. The date of birth and the father’s name in all the records are tallying with the description of the first petitioner. Therefore, the action of the respondent in issuing letter dated 21.05.2011 asking the first petitioner to produce declaration from competent civil court is not correct when there is no dispute with regard to identity of the first petitioner. 7 Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the respondent is directed to consider the case of the first petitioner herein for giving appointment to him on compassionate grounds consequent on the death of his mother K. Nirmala in accordance with rules and regulations of Devasthanam. 8 The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. _____________ K.C. BHANU, J 15.07.2011 C.C. in two days B/0 Kvsn