Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2044 (MAD)

S. Kavitha v. State of Tamil Nadu

2015-04-28

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2015
JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard both sides. With the consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. The mother of the petitioner was employed as a Noon Meal Organizer. She died on 26.01.2001, while she was in service. Immediately on her death, the petitioner made a representation dated 10.05.2001 to the respondents seeking to provide her compassionate appointment. The fifth respondent Vellore Corporation forwarded the representation to the third respondent on 15.12.2006 along with all other certificates and recommended for providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 3. The third respondent seems to have sent a letter dated 28.12.2006 requesting the fourth respondent to grant proper permission to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 4. In these circumstances, the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Vellore, vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.401/2007/B2 dated 22.01.2007, requested the fourth respondent to issue appropriate order to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner. In the said proceedings dated 22.01.2007, the fifth respondent also referred to the proceedings dated 28.12.2006 of the third respondent District Collector directing him to obtain appropriate permission from the fourth respondent in this regard. 5. The petitioner enclosed various certificates in support of her claim. She also produced a certificate to the effect that nobody in her family is in Government or private employment. It is also stated that the deceased Government servant does not own any property. It is further stated that the members of the deceased Government servant family are coolies and the monthly earning of her family is Rs.1000/-. A certificate to the aforesaid effect was given by the Tahsildar, Vellore. The petitioner also produced no objection certificate from other legal heirs of the deceased Government servant for providing compassionate appointment to her. She made various representations to provide her compassionate appointment. Even in the proceedings dated 17.01.2013, the third respondent District Collector directed the fifth respondent to produce certain documents, such as school certificate, transfer certificate, conduct certificate and community certificate of the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent Vellore Corporation, on instructions, submits that the documents as required by the District Collector in the proceedings dated 17.01.2013 were furnished by the fifth respondent and the fifth respondent is awaiting appropriate orders from the second respondent. 7. 6. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent Vellore Corporation, on instructions, submits that the documents as required by the District Collector in the proceedings dated 17.01.2013 were furnished by the fifth respondent and the fifth respondent is awaiting appropriate orders from the second respondent. 7. At this juncture, it is relevant to take note of the recommendations made by the third respondent District Collector to the second respondent in the letter dated Nil.02.2012 for providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner and the contents of the said letter reads as follows: “TAMIL” All cases requiring relaxation will be decided by the committee constituted with reference to para 20 of the Chief Minister's standing order No.2 personnel and administrative reforms dated:9.1.1992. “TAMIL” 8. From the reading of the aforesaid proceedings, it is clear that the District Collector recommended for compassionate appointment on the ground that the petitioner is abandoned by her husband and she is a destitute widow with two children. The only impediment, according to the third respondent District Collector is that at the time of death of her mother, the petitioner was a married person and hence, service rules does not provide appointment on compassionate ground for a married woman. In these circumstances, the District Collector sought for relaxation of the rules to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 9. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking compassionate appointment to her in this backdrop. 10. Though the authorities were inclined to provide compassionate appointment, the only impediment seems to be that the petitioner was a married woman at the time of the death of her husband and hence, the rules does not provide compassionate appointment. In my view, the same cannot be a ground to deny compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Such denial is against the very spirit of the constitutional scheme and is also opposed and in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 11. This Court has held in many cases that married woman is also entitled to compassionate appointment. In fact, the Government also issued orders in this regard. While marriage is not a bar in the case of son for compassionate appointment, the same cannot be put as a bar for providing compassionate appointment to the daughter. 11. This Court has held in many cases that married woman is also entitled to compassionate appointment. In fact, the Government also issued orders in this regard. While marriage is not a bar in the case of son for compassionate appointment, the same cannot be put as a bar for providing compassionate appointment to the daughter. Further, if such a bar is placed reliance, the same is violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 12. Furthermore, the Parliament has enacted 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. Hence, there is no reason to deny compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the ground of married woman. 13. In this regard, it is apt to extract para 6 of my judgment in KRISHNAVENI VS. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KADAMPARAI ELECTRICITY GENERATION BLOCK, MINPARAI [ 2013 (8) MLJ 684 ] as follows: “6. In similar circumstances, the matter was considered by me in W.P.(MD) No.5183 of 2013 (M.Sudha vs. the District Collector, Thanjavur District), and I set aside the similar impugned order and issued direction to the respondent therein to consider the case of the petitioner therein for compassionate appointment, if the petitioner therein was otherwise eligible for appointment. In fact, in the said judgment, I followed the earlier judgment of mine in W.P.(MD) No.8686 of 2011. The relevant paragraph 5 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder: "5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter is squarely covered by a decision dated 2.7.2012 rendered by me in W.P.(MD) No.8686 of 2011. Paragraph 9 of the judgment is extracted hereunder: “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 carte 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. 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 reported in 2008 5 CTC 685 (G.Girija vs. Assistant Director (Panchayats) Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District) 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. 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." 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.