He left behind a widowed wife and two sons, including the respondent who was 11 years old at that time.
Suffice to numbere that eventually, the Municipality rejected the respondents claim for companypassionate appointment vide order dated 19.4.2000.
In the order dated April 19, 2000, two reasons were assigned for rejecting the respondents claim for appointment on companypassionate basis.
The second reason given for number accepting the respondents claim was rejected outright by the Division Bench relying upon a decision of this Court in Balbir Kaur and another Versus Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others, AIR 2000 SC 1596.
The wife of the deceased, whose age at the time of the death of her husband was 39 years, did number make any request for her appointment on companypassionate grounds.
After about five and a half years of his fathers death, the respondent passed the S.S.L.C. examination in April, 1993.
Another application was made on his behalf on attaining majority after 7 years and 6 months of his fathers death.
A single Judge of the High Court, this time, rejected the Writ Petition.
But the Division Bench also disapproved the first reason assigned for rejecting the respondents claim.
In this companynection it was also stated that in case on the death of Meenakshisundaram, his wife had made a request for appointment on companypassionate grounds, her application might have been companysidered giving her relaxation of age and academic qualification.
The second reason given for rejecting the respondents claim was that following the death of Meenakshisundaram, the family was given Rs.26,674/ as terminal benefits besides family pension to the widow.
That Writ Petition was disposed of by a single Judge of the High Court with a direction to the authorities to companysider his claim for appointment on companypassionate grounds afresh and pass an order on his application within four months from the date of receipt of that order.
Thus, the dependents of the deceased employee were number left companypletely without any financial resources.
Thereafter, number of representations were sent to the Karaikal Municipality and this Court finds in one such representation dated 13 9 1996 as found in the file produced by the Municipality , it has been stated as under, My mother companyld number immediately seek for self employment, as she was suffering from anaemia and hypo tension.
Later on, another application was made for his appointment on companypassionate grounds after 7 years and 6 months of the death of his father.
The first application for his appointment was made on July 2, 1993, even while he was a minor.
He once again went to the High Court.
And on this score, the decision of the High Court cannot be faulted.
The High Court further asked the appellants to companyply with the direction within three months from the date of the order.
He died on November 22, 1988, after putting in 4 years 3 months and 25 days of service.
And then, for the first time on July, 29, 1993, the respondents mother made an application for his appointment on companypassionate grounds.
By the judgment and order companying under appeal, the High Court directed the appellants to provide appointment to the respondent under the scheme of companypassionate appointments for the death of his father while he was in service.
This order first in the series passed by the High Court was followed by a companytempt proceeding initiated against the authorities at the instance of the respondent but that is number relevant for the present and we need number go into that any further.
The appellants have number brought this matter to this Court.
In this companynection, the Division bench said So far as the first reasoning is companycerned, at the time of death of father of the petitioner, the petitioner was just 11 years old.
In the S.S.L.C., examination companyducted in April, 1993, he came out successfully and made an application on 12 7 1993 for companypassionate appointment.
The respondents father Meenakshisundaram worked as a Watchman in Karaikal Municipality.
Against the order passed by the single Judge, he filed an intra court appeal which was allowed by judgment and order dated April 30, 2004, and the Municipality was given the direction to appoint the respondent within three months from the date of the order.
Failing to get a favourable response to his application, he filed a Writ Petition before the High Court seeking appropriate directions to the companycerned authorities.
First, on the death of Meenakshisundaram, his wife, the mother of the respondent did number make any request for appointment and this showed that the demise of the companycerned employee had number caused a very serious financial crisis in the family.
It accepted the respondents explanation for her mother number applying for a job on the death of his father and held that companyld number be a ground for denying appointment to him on companypassionate basis.
Aftab Alam, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court.
No action was possible on this application since the respondent was still a minor.
