Madras High Court
The Commissioner And Secretary To ... vs Angelin Lini on 14 July, 2015
Bench: S.Manikumar, G.Chockalingam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.07.2015
Coram
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM
Writ Appeal (MD) No.751 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015
1.The Commissioner and Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3.The District Collector,
Kanniyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Padmanabhapuram, Thuckalay,
Kanniyakumari District. ... Appellants/
Respondents
vs.
Angelin Lini ... Respondent/
Petitioner
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the
order, dated 09.06.2014, made in W.P.(MD)No.9056 of 2014.
!For Appellants : Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian,
Spl.Govt.Pleader.
^For Respondent : Mr.A.Robinson
:JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.MANIKUMAR,J) Being aggrieved by the order, dated 09.06.2014, made in W.P.(MD)No.9056 of 2014, setting aside the order, dated 26.04.2014, of the District Collector, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil, the 3rd appellant herein, and the consequential direction issued to him to appoint the respondent, as Junior Assistant, in the Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram at Thuckalay, Kanaykumari District, the 4th appellant herein, the present writ appeal has been filed.
2.Facts of the case, as deduced from the material on record and the order impugned, are that the respondent's father, working as a Junior Revenue Assistant in the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Thuckalay, Kanniyakumari District, died in harness on 14.09.2012. During the life time of the bread-winner, respondent's marriage was solemnized on 06.06.2011. As her husband was not employed, they were struggling to to meet both ends and hence, the respondent made an application on 07.09.2013 to the appellants, for employment assistance, on compassionate grounds. Her application was not considered. Hence, she was constrained to file a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.7244 of 2014, wherein a direction was given by this Court, vide order dated 25.04.2014, to consider the said representation and pass appropriate orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
3.Thereafter, vide proceedings No.O.Mu.Aa.1/11464/2014, dated 26.04.2014, the District Collector, Kanniyakumari District, rejected the request of the respondent on the ground that even prior to the death of the Government Servant, i.e.on 14.09.2012, she was married and hence her candidature could not be considered for employment assistance, on compassionate grounds. According to the District Collector, she was ineligible under the Scheme. When the said order was put to challenge, after considering the earlier decisions of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.18660 of 2013, dated 10.07.2013, W.P.(MD)No.22171 of 2013, dated 13.08.2013, the writ court, and by observing that the issue as to whether a married daughter is entitled for employment assistance on compassionate grounds is no longer res integra and on the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the writ petition.
4.Perusal of the impugned order made in W.P.(MD)No.9056 of 2014, dated 09.06.2014, also shows that even at the time of admission of the writ petition, the learned Additional Government Pleader, who appeared for the appellants before the writ court, had fairly conceded to the above said position. Thus, while setting aside the order, dated 26.04.2014, of the District Collector, Kanniyakumari District, the Writ Court has directed the District Collector to consider the case of the respondent for employment Assistance, on compassionate grounds, without reference to her marriage, if she is otherwise eligible for appointment to the post, to which request has been made. The Writ Court has further directed that the said exercise shall be done by the District Collector, Kanniyakumari District, appellant No.3, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order made in the writ petition. Operative portion of the order made in W.P.(MD)No.18660 of 2013, dated 10.07.2013, considered by the writ court is reproduced hereunder.
?5.But, her request was rejected by the impugned order dated 25.02.2013 by the respondent. The only reason given in the impugned order is that her daughter Jayashree was married at the time of death of the husband of the petitioner and therefore she was not eligible to grant compassionate appointment.
6.In similar circumstances, the matter was considered by me in W.P.(MD)No.51 83 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 02.07.2012 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 notice 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 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 (pachayats) Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District) applies to the facts of this case. In the said case, the Government servant died on 26.02.1991. The daughter got married on 10.9.2006 (sic). She gave an application for compassionate appointment on 02.06.1997. 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.?
Before the writ court, the learned Additional Government Pleader, who appeared for the appellants, had also fairly conceded to the relief being granted, after going through the decision made in W.P.(MD)No.18660 of 2013, dated 10.07.2013.
5.Despite the above, writ appeal has been filed contending inter alia that the learned Single Judge had failed to consider that the respondent herein is not eligible for employment assistance on compassionate grounds, as she was married even prior to the death of her father. In addition to the above, Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian, learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that the marriage of the respondent was on 06.06.2011. The Government Servant died on 14.09.2012 and the application for employment assistance, by the respondent, was submitted on 07.09.2013. According to him, after marriage, she cannot be considered a dependant of the deceased Government Servant and that, therefore, she is ineligible for employment assistance, on compassionate grounds.
6.Defending the impugned order made in W.P.(MD)No.9056 of 2014, dated 09.06.2014, and inviting the attention of this Court to the orders made in W.A.(MD)No.216 of 2013, dated 27.06.2014, in the matter of Adhilakshmi vs. The District Collector, Madurai District and another, and another order made in W.A.No.635 of 2015, dated 23.04.2015, in the matter of The Assistant Primary Education Officer, Anthiyur and two others vs. Kayalvizhi, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the challenge to the impugned order on the grounds that married daughter is ineligible for employment assistance on compassionate grounds is untenable. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that irrespective of the fact that whether marriage solemnized was anterior or later, in point of time, the question to be considered is whether married daughter is eligible for appointment or not. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shreejith L. v. Director of Education, Kerala, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 248, has held that marriage by itself does not disqualify a person concerned from seeking employment assistance. He further added that the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court has been duly considered by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in w.A.(MD)No.216 of 2013, dated 27.06.2014, and, for the above reasons, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
8.Facts deduced from the order made in W.A.(MD)No.216 of 2013, dated 27.06.2014, are that the Government Servant died on 02.04.2002. Immediately, mother of the appellant therein made an application seeking employment assistance, on compassionate grounds. The said request was rejected on the ground inter alia that the appellant was married, at that time and as per G.O.(Ms)No.9, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 19.01.1998, married daughters are not eligible for employment assistance compassionate grounds. When the said order was assailed, the writ petition was dismissed. On appeal, placing reliance on the decision of the Honb'le Supreme Court in Shreejith, L vs. Deputy Director (Education), Kerala and others ? (2012) 7 SCC 248, arguments have been made that married daughters cannot be made ineligible. Accepting the said contention, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court at Paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of its order, in W.A.(MD)No.216 of 2013, dated 27.06.l2014, ordered as follows:
?10.On consideration of all the materials, it is seen that there are Rules and Government Orders laying down the conditions for compassionate appointment. The appellant fulfils all the conditions. Her application was not considered at the time when the application was made due to ban order on recruitment. Even after lifting the ban order, the respondents did not consider the application of the appellant. Further, the respondents cannot rely on the Government Order, which denies the compassionate appointment to married daughters, in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2012 (7) SCC 248 [Shreejith.
L Vs.Deputy Director (Education) Kerala and Others]. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the fact that the appellant's family is in indigent position, is not in doubt, as they did not have even money for funeral expenses.
11.For the reasons stateed above, the writ appeal is allowed, we set aside the impugned order, dated 17.09.2010, made in W.P.(MD)No.1813 of 2009. The writ petition shall stand allowed and we direct the first respondent to consider the application of the appellant in the light of the Judgment of the Apex Court in 2012 (7) SCC 248 [Shreejith. L Vs.Deputy Director (Education) Kerala and Others], within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.?
9.Perusal of the order made in W.A.635 of 2015, dated 23.04.2015, shows that being aggrieved by the direction given by the Writ Court to consider the claim of the respondent therein, a married woman, for employment assistance, intra court appeal has filed. Taking note of an earlier order made in W.P.No.22709, dated 08.12.2014 (P.Kamatchi vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and another), another Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the challenge made by the official respondents, for the reasons recorded at paragraph No.2, which is reproduced.
?2.This Court, while considering the entitlement of married daughter in the order dated 08.12.2014 in W.P.No.22709 of 2014 (P.Kamatchi vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and another), has held as under:
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was married only on 20.08.2012 and as such, she is entitled to be considered subject to certain conditions, which are prescribed in the said G.O. On perusal, it appears that the petitioner has one younger sister by name Thamizharasi. It is not clear as to whether her younger sister is eligible for appointment or not.
However, the petitioner even if she is a married daughter of the deceased employee, she is entitled to consideration subject to certain conditions as stated in the said G.O. The said G.O.reads as under:
Orders are issued with the following conditions for the issuance of appointments among those persons, mentioned as near relatives of the Government Servant, who died in harness, as per G.O.4th read above, and by virtue of being an unmarried woman, having submitted an application, seeking appointment, and who subsequently got married before being issued appointment, if they otherwise fulfil other eligibility for their appointment on commissioner grounds.
(i)'No Objection Certificate' from the remaining members of the family, while being an unmarried woman and after marriage when such woman is issued appointment, again a 'No objection Certificate' from the remaining members of the family shall be submitted.
(ii)The individual who gets appointment opportunity after being married, shall submit an undertaking to the effect that they shall be helpful to the parents' family.
(iii)The person who is going to marry the woman, who has sought appointment on compassionate grounds, shall furnish an undertaking that he shall not cause hindrance in helping her parents in future.?
10.Decisions of the Hon'ble Division Benches in W.A.(MD)No.216 of 2013, dated 27.06.2014, in the matter of Adhilakshmi vs. The District Collector, Madurai District and another, and in W.A.No.635 of 2015, dated 23.04.2015, in the matter of The Assistant Primary Education Officer, Anthiyur and two others vs. Kayalvizhi, are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Marriage solemnized, whether anterior or posterior to the date of death of the Government Servant, is immaterial, so long as the applicant satisfies the eligibility prescribed for employment assistance on compassionate grounds. Further, in G.O.Ms.No.185, Labour and Employment (A2) Department, dated 30.08.2010, one of the conditions imposed for providing employment assistance to married daughters of the deceased Government servants is that an undertaking should be obtained from such daughter to the effect that after obtaining employment on compassionate grounds, she would extend all assistance/help to the family.
11.In view of the above discussion and decisions cited supra, we find no grounds to entertain the writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
To:
1.The Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3.The District Collector, Kanniyakumari District, Nagercoil.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Thuckalay, Kanniyakumari District.
.