Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 407 (MAD)

D. Kiruba v. District Collector, Dindigul

2015-01-23

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2015
Judgment 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the first respondent dated 23.12.2014, wherein and whereby, she was denied appointment on compassionate ground only on the reason that she is a married daughter of the deceased employee at the time of making the application seeking for compassionate appointment. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: Her father was working as Night Watchman in the third respondent office and he died on 02.04.2012 due to illness. The petitioner's only brother, viz. Prabhu, applied for a job under compassionate appointment before the first respondent but his application was rejected by the first respondent dated 06.08.2013 on the ground that on the date of death of his father, the petitioner's brother crossed the age of 35 and hence he is not eligible to be appointed under the compassionate ground. As such she is the only legal heir available in the family eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. Thus, she preferred an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground at the office of the first respondent and the first respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.N.o.4350/2014/OOVA3 dated 23.12.2014, rejected her claim on the ground that the petitioner already got married while her father was in service. Aggrieved against the same the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by various decisions made by this Court in W.P.No.20271 of 2014 dated 21.08.2014, etc., in favour of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents also fairly submitted that the issue involved in this case has already been settled by this Court in favour of the petitioner. 5. In W.P.No.20271 of 2014 dated 21.08.2014, a learned Judge of this Court, held at paragraph Nos.6 and 7 as follows: “6. 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. 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 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.” 7. 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 of 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.” 6. As the issue involved in this case is already settled by this Court in various decisions, in favour of the petitioner herein, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the first respondent cannot be sustained anymore. There is no other reason stated in the impugned order except the one already discussed supra. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The first and second respondents are directed to pass suitable orders on the petitioner's request for compassionate appointment within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.