IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:21.07.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.42398 of 2006 (T) O.A.No.7898 of 1999 P.Muthulingam ..Petitioner Vs. 1. Chief Engineer, Highway Rural Works, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 002. 2. Superintendent Engineer, Highway Rural Works, T.V.S. Tolgate, Trichy – 620 020. 3. Divisional Engineer, Highway Rural Works, T.V.S. Tolgate, Trichy – 620 020. ..Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.7898 of 1999 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to quash the order in No.Ku.No.13346/96/A2, dated 25.08.99 passed by the 2nd respondent and to direct the respondents to consider the appointment under the compassionate ground in the post of Record Clerk suitable to his qualification. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sannjay For Respondents : Mr.S.Gopinathan, AGP ORDER The petitioner has filed the original application seeking for appointment on compassionate ground, which was rejected on the ground that it was filed belatedly. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner's father died on 06.07.79, by that time, the petitioner, unfortunately, was only 3 years old. Therefore, naturally, the petitioner could not make his application, since he is entitled for appointment only on reaching the majority. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ However, immediately, on attaining the majority on 06.12.94, the petitioner submitted his application requesting to consider his appointment on compassionate ground, as his father died on 06.07.79. But, the respondents rejected the application made by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the rejection of the petitioner on the ground that the application was filed belatedly, is totally unsustainable, in view of the fact that the respondents have considered several appointments of 29 persons with huge delays, particularly, in some cases, the respondents have entertained the applications filed with delay of 17 years as well. 4. However, when the matter was argued, learned counsel appearing for the respondents brought to the notice of the Court, a communication written by the respondent in letter No.34, dated 16.04.2002. As per the above said letter, the respondent has taken a policy decision not to appoint any children born out of void marriage on compassionate ground. Since the petitioner, admittedly, a son of second wife of the deceased employee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court, a judgment of this Court reported in (2009) 1 MLJ 54, wherein it has been held 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 1st 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 1st respondent. In such circumstances, the strange conclusion by the 1st 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." Further, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court, a judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported in (2008) 5 MLJ 795, wherein paragraph 27 made clear that the eligibility criteria prescribed to get employment assistance to families of the deceased Government Servants would make clear that the dependants of the deceased Government Servant include the son and it does not denote whether the son should be a legitimate or illegitimate son of the parents. The above said Division Bench judgment of this Court holds that the children born out of irregular https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ marriage is also entitled to claim the benefit of their parents, which includes even the benefit of compassionate ground as well. 5. That apart, the respondents have considered 29 similarly placed persons with a delay of 12 years and in some cases 17 years of delay, while entertaining the application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, this Court, having seen the records produced by the petitioner from the office of the respondents as well as taking note of the judgments referred supra, directs the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner without reference to the delay as well as letter No.34, dated 16.04.2002 and such order should be passed by the 1st respondent within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. sd/- Asst.Registrar /True copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar rkm To 1. The Chief Engineer, Highway Rural Works, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 002. 2. The Superintendent Engineer, Highway Rural Works, T.V.S. Tolgate, Trichy – 620 020. 3. The Divisional Engineer, Highway Rural Works, T.V.S. Tolgate, Trichy – 620 020. + 1 c.c. to Mr. K. Sannjay, Advocate. S.R.No.52986. + 1 c.c. to The Government Pleader. S.R.No.53049. W.P.No.42398/2006 AKR (CO) GSK 09.08.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/