Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2795 (MAD)

K. Akhila v. District Collector

2014-08-21

R.S.RAMANATHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT R.S. RAMANATHAN, J. 1. The petitioner's father died on 25.2.2011 while he was working in the office of the third respondent. At the time of his death, he left behind his widow, Thangamali, and the petitioner herein. The petitioner got married and was living with her mother. The petitioner applied to the first respondent for seeking appointment on compassionate ground, by enclosing necessary certificates and also the no objection given by her mother, who is the other legal heir to the deceased Karunanithi. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by the first respondent by an order dated 14.11.2013 and the same is challenged in this writ petition. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner was married at the time of death of her father, she is entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground subject to the conditions stated by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 165, Labour and Employment (Q-2) Department dated 30.8.2010 and the Government cannot discriminate between the married son and married daughter and this Court also considered the case of the married daughter for appointment on compassionate ground in W.P. No. 22171 of 2013 dated 13.8.2013 and directed the third respondent in that writ petition to consider the case of the married daughter for appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that G.O. Ms. No. 96, Labour and Employment (Q-1) Department, dated 18.6.2012, was challenged in W.P. No. 33305 of 2013 and that Government Order was held to be ultra vires and this Court held that there cannot be fixation on any cut off date for giving employment for married daughters and men and women and they must be treated equally. It is therefore, submitted that the order of the first respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner for compassionate ground, has to be set aside. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that as per G.O. Ms. It is therefore, submitted that the order of the first respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner for compassionate ground, has to be set aside. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that as per G.O. Ms. No. 165, dated 30.8.2010, daughters, who were not married at the time of submitting application for compassionate appointment and subsequently got married before the issuance of order, has to comply with certain conditions for getting appointment on compassionate ground and in this case, the petitioner got married even prior to death of her father and therefore, she cannot claim any appointment on compassionate ground and therefore, the respondent has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. 5. I am unable to accept the said contention of the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. The learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 22171 of 2013 followed his earlier judgment rendered in W.P. (MD) No. 8686 of 2011, wherein the learned Judge observed as follows:- "9. As stated above, if marriage is not a bar in the case of son, the same yardstick shall be applied in the case of a daughter also. At this juncture, it is relevant to take note of the statute, namely the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which places equal duty on both the son and daughter to take care of the parents at the old age. Therefore, in the case of death of the parents, there cannot be any unequal treatment among the children based on sex. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the judgment of this Court in G. Girija vs. Assistant Director (Panchayats) Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District, 2008 (5) CTC 685, applies to the facts of this case. In the said case, the Government Servant died on 26.2.1991. The daughter got married on 10.9.2006. She gave an application for compassionate appointment on 2.6.1997. This Court quashed the order declining to give compassionate appointment holding that there cannot be any discrimination between sons and daughters in the case of giving compassionate appointment. The said judgment squarely applies to the facts of this case. Therefore, I have no hesitation to quash the impugned order. She gave an application for compassionate appointment on 2.6.1997. This Court quashed the order declining to give compassionate appointment holding that there cannot be any discrimination between sons and daughters in the case of giving compassionate appointment. The said judgment squarely applies to the facts of this case. Therefore, I have no hesitation to quash the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment without reference to the marriage of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in the light of this judgment within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 6. Therefore, as per the above judgment, there cannot be any discrimination between the son and daughter and the daughter though married is also entitled to the claim for appointment on compassionate ground, provided she satisfies the other requirements as stated in G.O. Ms. No. 165, dated 30.8.2010 and the claim of the married daughter cannot be rejected on the ground that she got married at the time of submitting the application for appointment on compassionate ground. In this case, the deceased Government Servant left behind his widow and the daughter and the daughter has also stated in the affidavit that she is living with her mother and taking care of the mother and the mother has also filed an affidavit to the effect that she has no objection for giving compassionate appointment to her poor daughter. 7. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments that compassionate appointment can be considered to give immediate relief to the family of the deceased Government Servant and taking into consideration of the financial position of the Government Servant, the legal heirs of the Government Servant can be given appointment. As the impugned order was passed on the only ground that the married daughter was not eligible for compassionate appointment as per G.O. Ms. No. 165, dated 30.8.2010, the said order is set aside and the first respondent is directed to consider the financial position of the deceased family by directing the petitioner to give particulars about the properties, if any, left by the deceased Government Servant and also ask the Government Servant to file necessary undertaking as per Clauses (2) and (3) of the conditions stated in G.O. Ms. No. 165, dated 30.8.2010 and after considering all these aspects, the case of the petitioner shall be considered by the first respondent. 8. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. The first respondent is directed to call for the details, as stated above, from the petitioner, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on submission of those details by the petitioner, the first respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders, within a period of 8 weeks thereafter. No costs.