Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1489 (MAD)

A. Bhuvaneswari v. Secretary To Govt

2012-03-27

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order of the secretary to the Govt. of Tamil Nadu Revenue Dept. Chennai-9, the 1st respondent herein, issued vide Letter (1D) No.19 dated 9.1.2001, with consequential relief of a writ in the nature of mandamus, to direct the respondents herein to provide employment to the petitioner in the Revenue Dept. on compassionate ground. 2. The husband of the petitioner was employed as Taluk Supply Officer in the Revenue Department, who died in harness during employment. 3. The father in law of the petitioner owns 9.33.0 Hectares of land by inheritance. The land is agriculture and dry lands, which is in the joint name of the family members. 4. The petitioner submitted a certificate from Revenue Divisional Officer showing that she has no source of income to maintain herself, therefore was indigent. 5. In spite of documentary evidence, the claim of the petitioner was rejected, on the ground that the petitioner could not be considered to be indigent for appointment on compassionate ground in view of financial status of the petitioner. 6. The impugned order is challenged, on the ground that once documentary evidence by way of certificate of the Revenue Divisional Officer showing that the petitioner had no other source of income except terminal benefits was submitted and it was proved that joint family property was not giving any income, it was not open to the respondents to reject the claim of the petitioner, on the ground that she was not indigent person. 7. On notice, counter has been filed wherein it is stated that on receipt of application from the petitioner, a report was called for from the Tahsildar, Sathymangalam who had issued certificate stating that family of the deceased Government servant was in indigent circumstances. Report was also obtained from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gobichettipalayam who had supported the claim of the petitioner. 8. It is the stand in the counter, that the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai vide letter dated 13.04.1996 confirmed that father of the deceased Government servant was in possession of undivided ancestral property and was giving Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) per annum, to the family of the deceased Government servant. 9. 8. It is the stand in the counter, that the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai vide letter dated 13.04.1996 confirmed that father of the deceased Government servant was in possession of undivided ancestral property and was giving Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) per annum, to the family of the deceased Government servant. 9. The case of the respondent No.1 is that, a detailed report was called for regarding the actual value of the property owned by the father of the deceased Government servant and the total income derived from it; the actual share of the petitioner in landed property and the income derived from it; actual value of the two houses owned by the petitioner, and the income derived from the property; actual value of two plots owned by her, as reported in her statement dt.09.10.1995; Value of the properties acquired from her parents if any; amount received by way of compensation for the death of her husband in a road accident, and Life Insurance policy and any other source of income. 10. Report was received showing that the petitioner owned properties valued at Rs.4,35,954/- (Rupees four lakhs thirty five thousand nine hundred and fifty four only). It was also disclosed that income of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) was received by her by way of lease of land. A positive finding is recorded in view of the available material; it was proved that the petitioner was financially strong. 11. The positive finding was also recorded, that the value of the house let out by the petitioner's family was Rs.2,07,000/-(Rupees two lakhs seven thousand only). In addition to this, the petitioner's family owned two houses which were rented out @ Rs.850/- p.m. and Rs.1700/- per month respectively. 12. The counter shows that the petitioner had failed to disclose the details of the properties owned by her. 13. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the averments made in the counter, but no rejoinder to the counter is filed. Even otherwise, it will not be appropriate for this Court, at this stage to give direction to consider the case for appointment after a lapse of more than 11 years, as such direction would defeat the very object of the compassionate appointment, which can be given to tide over the immediate financial crisis, in view of the settled law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 14. 14. In view of the decision of this Court in batch cases in W.P.No.49346 of 2006 (Vinoth Kumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu) decided on 19.03.2012, this writ petition is ordered to be dismissed. No costs.