Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 824 (MAD)

Suganya v. Inspector General of Registration

2015-02-10

K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

body2015
Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the second respondent dated 25.11.2011, whereby her request seeking compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is a married daughter of the deceased employee. 3. It is seen that the petitioner's mother was working as a Sub-Registrar in the Registration Department and died on 10.02.2011, while she was in service. Consequently, the petitioner has made an application seeking compassionate appointment. Such application was rejected by the impugned order, only on the ground that the petitioner even though was not married at the time of making the application, has however before grant of such appointment, she got married and therefore, she is not entitled to get the compassionate appointment. 4. The issue as to whether the marriage of the daughter amounts to disqualification for considering her claim for appointment on compassionate ground, has already been considered by this Court on very many occasions and decided by holding that such is not the disqualification. One of such decision was made in G. Girija -vs- Assistant Director (Panchayats) Kancheepuram and Others reported in 2008 6 MLJ 774 . The learned Single Judge by following the Honourable Division Bench has observed in paragraphs 6 and 7 thus: "6. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents submits that a similar issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.18916 and the Division Bench in paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 has held as follows: “8. There is no dispute that the Government has made provision for appointment on compassionate ground, obviously with a view to enable the family members of the deceased employee to tide over immediately the financial stringency on account of the breadwinner in the family. It is of course true that as per G.O. Ms. No.73, Employment Services dated 26.10.1983, only an unmarried daughter is eligible and not a married daughter. However, there is no requirement in the G.O. that at the time of actual employment such unmarried daughter should continue to be unmarried nor there is any requirement that after an unmarried daughter gets employment on the compassionate ground, she cannot marry in future. No.73, Employment Services dated 26.10.1983, only an unmarried daughter is eligible and not a married daughter. However, there is no requirement in the G.O. that at the time of actual employment such unmarried daughter should continue to be unmarried nor there is any requirement that after an unmarried daughter gets employment on the compassionate ground, she cannot marry in future. There is no dispute that the present petitioner was eligible to make the application and she made an application as an unmarried daughter. The appropriate authority took about 3 to 4 years to finalise the matter. Merely because the unmarried daughter got married in the meantime and that too with a specific understanding that her husband would have no objection to her maintaining the members of the family of her father, it cannot be said that such person had got employment by suppressing any material fact. 9.We have also perused the format in which such applications are required to be made. There is no column in such format to indicate that an applicant at the time of her employment is required to disclose whether she is married in the meantime is any requirement that an unmarried daughter after getting such appointment on compassionate ground is required to remain as a spinster for ever. If an unmarried daughter after getting employment on compassionate ground has liberty to marry, we fail to understand as to why an unmarried daughter, who makes such application and is otherwise eligible, keeping in view the financial aspect would be deprived of the right of getting employment more particularly when there is no objection raised by any other eligible person. As a matter of fact, in the present case, the mother and the petitioner’s brother, who has become major in the meantime, have filed affidavits stating that they have no objection to the petitioner continuing in service. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the Tribunal and such order is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be deemed to be continuing in service from the date of order of removal. However, no amount would be paid (sic) for the period from 25.6.2004 till the date of rejoining pursuant to the present order. The petitioner shall be permitted to rejoin in service witin a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, no amount would be paid (sic) for the period from 25.6.2004 till the date of rejoining pursuant to the present order. The petitioner shall be permitted to rejoin in service witin a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The entire period shall be notionally counted for the purpose of seniority, increments, pension, and other service benefits.” 7. In view of the Division Bench Judgment, which has already settled the controversy in this matter, the impugned order challenged in this writ petition is set aside and the second respondent is directed to issue appointment order to the petitioner on compassionate ground without reference to the marriage of the petitioner in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. Necessary order is directed to be passed by the second respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed" 5. I myself followed the above decision in other similar cases and has taken similar view. Recently, another learned Single Judge of this Court has found that the married daughters are also entitled to get compassionate appointment, in a decision in P.R. Renuka -vs- Director of Animal Husbandry, Central Government Office Buildings, Chennai-6 and others reported in 2014 (8) MLJ 268 . 6. By following the above decisions, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to pass orders on the petitioner's application seeking for compassionate appointment within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.