Madras High Court
Adhilakshmi vs The District Collector on 27 June, 2014
Author: V.M.Velumani
Bench: V.Ramasubramanian, V.M.Velumani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.06.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI Writ Appeal (MD) No.216 of 2013 Adhilakshmi ... Appellant Vs. 1.The District Collector, O/o. The District Collectorate, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, T.Kallupatti, Madurai. ... Respondents PRAYER Writ appeal filed under Section 15 of Letters Patents Act against the order of this Court dated 17.10.2010 made in W.P.(MD) No.1813 of 2009. !For Appellant : Mr.Arun Murugan ^For Respondents : Mr.R.Velmurugan Government Advocate :JUDGMENT
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
The writ appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Judge, dated 17.10.2010, in W.P.(MD) No.1813 of 2009.
2.The Appellant's father was appointed as Noon Meal Organizer in Katnery Panchayat Union, T.Kallupatti, by the District Collector, Madurai District, vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.313089/82, dated 29.01.1983. While in service, he died on 02.04.2002. The appellant's mother applied for funds for funeral expenses on the same day and the same was sanctioned by the second respondent. Immediately, the appellant's mother made a representation to the first respondent for giving appointment to the appellant on compassionate ground. She was making repeated requests and reminders and finally, she sent a representation on 05.04.2006 to the first respondent in this regard.
3.The second respondent, by his letter in Na.Ka.No.1305/2006/A5, dated 05.05.2006, called upon the appellant's mother to furnish an application from the appellant together with Educational Qualification Certificate and Legal Heirship Certificate. The appellant furnished all these documents and also her registration particulars with the employment exchange. On 02.01.2008, the second respondent by proceedings in Na.Ka.No.4496/2007/A5, forwarded the application of the appellant to the first respondent with recommendation. He also sent a communication dated 07.02.2008 bearing Na.Ka.No.4496/2007/A5 to the appellant's mother, that on receipt of the clarification from the Government as to from which date the Government Order with regard to compassionate appointment is to be implemented, her application would be considered.
4.No order was passed by the first respondent on the application of the appellant for appointment on compassionate ground. On the other hand, a notification was issued for appointment of Noon Meal Organizer at Katnery Panchayat Union, T.Kallupatti, Periyar Taluk, Madurai District. The appellant filed W.P.(MD) No.1813 of 2009, to quash the said notification and direct the respondents to consider her appointment on compassionate grounds. This Court, on 12.03.2009, passed an interim order, directing the respondents to keep one noon meal organizer post at Kadanery Panchayat, as vacant, if not filled, pursuant to the interview conducted on 27.02.2009.
5.The respondents filed counter affidavit in the writ petition admitting that the appellant's father died in harness and the appellant made an application for appointment on compassionate ground. They have stated that,
a) Noon Meal Organizer post at Kadnery Panchayat Union School was reserved for MBC Candidate;
b) during 02.04.2002 there was a ban order to fill up the vacant post on compassionate ground;
c) the appellant was married at the time and as per G.O.(Ms)No.9, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 19.01.1998, married daughters are not eligible for the post on compassionate ground; and
d) as per G.O.(Ms)No.42, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 12.03.2007, the appellant is not an indigent person and she did not submit her indigent certificate from the Tahsildar.
6.By order, dated 17.09.2010, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that there must be Rules providing for compassionate appointment and the appointment is to provide minimum financial assistance to the family of the Government Servant, who dies in harness. Against the said order, the present writ appeal is preferred.
7.Heard Mr.Arun Murugan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.R.Velmurugan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
8.Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appellant was eligible for compassionate appointment as per the Rules and Government Orders. The application of the appellant was not considered due to ban order on recruitment imposed by the Government. The appellant furnished all the documents as required by the respondents and at no point of time, the respondents called upon the appellant to furnish indigent certificate. The respondents are fully aware of the poverty of the appellant's family, as they did not have even money for funeral expenses, which was provided by the respondents. Further, as per the Judgment of the Apex Court in Shreejith. L Vs. Deputy Director (Education) Kerala and Others [2012 (7) SCC 248], even married daughters are eligible for compassionate appointment.
9.The learned Government Advocate reiterated the contentions in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition and contended that the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition only after considering all the Judgments and conditions for appointment on compassionate ground and hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
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 stated 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 Shreejith. L Vs. Deputy Director (Education) Kerala and Others [2012 (7) SCC 248], within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
To
1.The District Collector, O/o. The District Collectorate, Madurai District, Madurai.
2.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, T.Kallupatti, Madurai.