S MOHAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF T N

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The mother of the appellant died in harness on 8/1/1974 after more than twenty years of service as a teacher in the Bodinayakanur Municipal Girls' Middle School. At the time of her death, out of her three sons including the appellant, two were employed. Nothing is mentioned about the terminal benefits received by the family on the death of the mother. The father of the appellant, at the time of the death of the mother, was receiving a small pension of less than Rs 300 per month.

(2.) Ten years and eight months thereafter, on 6/9/1984 the appellant was appointed by the respondents in a leave vacancy for a period of three months on compassionate grounds. His services were terminated on 17/12/1984. Thereafter the appellant on 12/8/1985 submitted full particulars regarding the family of his deceased mother, the status of the two brothers and their income and also particulars regarding the income of the father. On 19-10-1987, he was appointed as Junior Assistant in Bodinayakanur municipality on compassionate grounds. The order of appointment is produced before us. The subject relates to the appointment of the appellant as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds. The appellant, accordingly, joined duty. The appellant's service was terminated under an order dated 3/1/1990. This order, inter alia, states that the appellant had requested the respondents not to issue any adverse orders since he had applied to the government for ratification. His application for ratification was forwarded to the secretary to the government through proper channel under office letter dated 13/11/1989. However, the Municipal Administration and Water supply Department by its order dated 21/12/1989 had refused to ratify the appointment of the appellant on compassionate grounds and had directed immediate action to be taken and a report sent. Accordingly by the said order, the services of the appellant were terminated and he was requested to hand over the charge immediately.

(3.) Thereupon, the appellant moved the Tamil Nadu Administrative tribunal, Madras bench. Under an interim order of the Tribunal, the appellant was continued in service. Ultimately, by its order dated 14/12/1990, the Tribunal dismissed the application of the appellant holding that his appointment was contrary to the government orders in that connection and that the action of the government in not ratifying the appointment was correct. The appellant has filed the present appeal.