Madras High Court
K.Ilayarani vs The District Collector on 9 July, 2020
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.P.(MD)No.6606 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.07.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.6606 of 2020
(Through Video Conferencing)
K.Ilayarani ... Petitioner
Vs.
The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai. ... Respondent
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of
the respondent, ie., the District Collector, Madurai, passed in his e.f.vz;
58778/2012/[p1 ehs;:17.03.2020 and provide compassionate ground
appointment to the petitioner considering the qualifications required, within
a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner :Mr.S.Visvalingam
For Respondents :Mrs.J.Padmavathy Devi
Special Government Pleader
1/15
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.6606 of 2020
ORDER
Challenging the order passed by the respondent District Collector dated 17.03.2020 and for a consequential direction to the respondent to provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. One V.Kallanai, who was working as Village Assistant at Katchirayanpatti Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District, suddenly expired, while he was in service on 28.10.2011. His appointment as Village Assistant in revenue department was in regular service and was in regular time scale of pay. The said deceased Government servant left behind her widow and three children. Subsequently, one of the child of the deceased Government servant, ie., one of the son, namely, Sakthiponnusamy got a Government job in the year 2013. However, the fact remains that, the said son Sakthiponnusamy of the deceased Government servant, though got Government job after the demise of his father, that appointment was given on merits and not on the basis of compassionate ground. Also to be noted 2/15 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.6606 of 2020 that, the said Sakthiponnusamy has started living separately leading his own life and he has never turned back or has never come and help the family of the deceased Government servant, ie., the widow as well as other two children of the deceased Government servant. There is no dispute on this factual aspects, as the impugned order also reflects the same.
3. In that circumstances, in order to bail out the family of the deceased Government servant, which means the family consisting of the widow and two other children from the indigent circumstances, one of the daughter, ie., the petitioner Ilayarani, seeking for appointment on compassionate ground, for which, application has been filed in the year 2012 itself. The said application dated 27.08.2012, having been considered, was rejected by the District Collector, ie., the respondent herein by the impugned order dated 17.03.2020.
4. Assailing the said impugned order, Mr.S.Visvalingam, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, the respondent, while rejecting the request of the petitioner for giving job on compassionate ground, has 3/15 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.6606 of 2020 quoted the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour and Employment Department dated 16.07.1993 and G.O.Ms.No.18 Labour and Employment Department dated 23.01.2020. The learned counsel would further submit that, the import or relevant portion of the said G.Os., do not any way restrain or prohibit the respondent from considering the candidature of the petitioner, as one of the legal heir of the deceased Government servant for the purpose of compassionate appointment, merely because one of the legal heir, ie., Sakthiponnusamy, son of the deceased Government servant, has already got a job.
5. In this context, the learned counsel would submit that, Paragraph No.3 of G.O.Ms.No.155 and also Clause 4 of G.O.Ms.No.18, in fact, enabling the respondent to consider the other legal heir for compassionate appointment, if already a legal heir, who is in Government job, prior to the death of the Government servant, provided he/she has not been lending any helping hand to the family of the deceased Government servant. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the reasons cited in the impugned order quoting the aforesaid two Government orders are not 4/15 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.6606 of 2020 good reasons and in fact, the G.Os. support the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order has to be interfered with and suitable direction can be given, he contended.
6. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent would submit that, both under the G.O.Ms.Nos.155 and 18, it has been categorically stated that, in respect of request for compassionate appointment, if the Government servant died during service and the family is in indigent and penurious circumstances, if one of the legal heir of the deceased Government servant is already in a Government job and getting a permanent salary and if he/she is not lending helping hand to the family of the deceased Government servant, then the employer can consider the request of the other legal heir of the deceased Government servant for the purpose of compassionate appointment. This is what the import of the relevant clause of the G.O.
7. However, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that, insofar as the present case is concerned, the Government servant died 5/15 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.6606 of 2020 in 2011, one of the legal heir Sakthiponnusamy has got job in 2013 and even though it may be a fact that, the said Sakthiponnusamy is not supporting the family of the deceased Government servant including the petitioner herein, this situation cannot be fit in under the relevant clause referred to above either under G.O.Ms.No.155 or under G.O.Ms.No.18. Therefore, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that, the case of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the respondent by quoting the relevant clauses of the respective G.Os., referred to above and therefore, the said impugned order need not be interfered with.
8. I have considered the said submissions made by both sides and have perused the materials placed before this Court.
9. Insofar as the factual matrix discussed above is concerned, there is no much dispute as the Government servant died in 2011, who is the father of the petitioner, left behind in a penurious circumstances his widow as well as three children. Out of the three children, one son Sakthiponnusamy has got a Government job thereafter in the year 2013, however, he started 6/15 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.6606 of 2020 leading his own life, which means that, he has not given any helping hand to the family of the deceased Government servant ie., the mother as well as the sisters of the said Sakthiponnusamy. Therefore, it become clear that, the family consisting of the widow and other two children of the deceased Government servant have been left behind in a penurious and indigent circumstances, where, no one is there to look after their welfare and to bail out the family from such circumstances. Whether these circumstances can be fit in within the aforesaid two clauses to consider the candidature of the petitioner on compassionate ground is a question before this Court in this writ petition. In order to delve in those issues, the relevant portion of the G.O.Ms.No.155 as well as G.O.Ms.No.18, which have been heavily relied upon by both sides, are quoted hereunder:
“3.In regard to the second condition mentioned in para 1 above, it is considered that if a member of the family is already in employment and supports the family then the restriction may be applied. When a dependant of the family is employed, the factors to be ascertained are, whether he is regularly employed, and is actually supporting the family. If that person was employed even 7/15 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.6606 of 2020 before the death of the Government servant and was living separately without extending any help to the family, then the case of other eligible dependants will be considered.” “(iv) If any, person in the deceased Government Servant's family was employed even before the death of the Government servant but was living separately without extending any help to the family, then the case of other eligible dependant will be considered.”
10. The relevant portion as quoted above in both the G.Os., have been heavily relied upon by the respondent herein, while passing the impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner. Therefore, the relevant portion of the impugned order is also extracted hereunder:
“5),e;epiyapy;> Nkw;fhZk; murhiz (epiy) vz;.155> njhopyhsh; kw;Wk; Ntiytha;g;Gj;Jiw ehs;:16.07.1993If; ftdkhf ghprPyid nra;jjpy;> muR Copah; ,wg;gjw;F Kd;Ng> mtuJ thhpRjhuh;fspy; xUth; muR gzpepakdk; ngw;W> FLk;gj;jpw;F ve;j cjtpAk; nra;ahky; jdpahf tho;e;J te;jhy;> mjdhy; ,we;j muR Copah; FLk;gk; twpa epiyapy; ,Ue;jhy;> jFjpahd gpw thhpRjhuh;fSf;F fUiz mbg;gilapy; gzp toq;Ftjw;F ghprPypf;fg;gLk; vdj; njhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.
8/15 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.6606 of 2020 6)fUizapd; mbg;gilapy; gzp epakdk;
toq;f> jw;NghJ tug;ngw;w murhiz (epiy) vz;:18> njhopyhsh; kw;Wk; Ntiytha;g;G (f;A+)j;Jiw ehs; 23.01.2020-y; fPo;f;fz;lthW Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ.
LEGAL HEIRS/NEAR RELATIVES OF THE DECEASED GOVERNMENT SERVANT/PERSON WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR COMPASSIONATE GROUND APPOINTMENT gj;jp (IV)-y;
(iv) If any person in the deceased Government servant's family was employed even before the death of the Government servant but was living separately without extending any help to the family, then the case of other eligible dependant will be consiedered.
7) ,we;j muR Copahpd; kfd; jpU.rf;jp nghd;Dr;rhkp vd;gth; mtuJ je;ij jpU.fy;yhiz ,we;jjw;F (28.10.2011) gpd;dh;> 2013-k; Mz;L Kjy; muR Copauhf gzpahw;wp tUfpwhh;.
vdNt> Kjd;ikr; nrayh; kw;Wk; tUtha; epUthf Mizah; mth;fspd; njspTiuapd;gbAk;> murhiz (epiy) vz;:155> njhopyhsh; kw;Wk;
Ntiytha;g;Gj;Jiw ehs;: 16.07.1993d;gbAk; kw;Wk;
murhiz (epiy) vz;:18> njhopyhsh; kw;Wk;
Ntiytha;g;G(f;A)j;Jiw ehs;:23.01.2020-d;gbAk;>
jpUkjp.,isauhzp vd;gtUf;F fUiz mbg;gilapy;
gzp epakdk; toq;Ftjw;F toptif ,y;iy.
vdNt> kJiu khtl;lk;> NkY}h; tl;lk;> 9/15 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.6606 of 2020 fr;rpuhad;gl;b fpuhkj;jpy; fpuhk cjtpahsuhfg;
gzpapy; ,Uf;Fk;NghJ 28.10.2011 md;W kuzkile;j jpU.fy;yhiz vd;gthpd; kidtp jpUkjp.re;jpuh vd;gth; jdJ kfs; jpUkjp. ,isauhzp vd;gtUf;F 27.08.2012 md;W fUiz mbg;gilapy; gzp toq;ff;Nfhhpa kDitj; js;Sgb nra;J ,jd;
%yk; cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.
(xk;) b.[p.tpda;.
khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiyth;
kJiu.
//c.e.c.g// khtl;l Ml;rpaUf;fhf.”
11. The paragraph 3 of G.O.Ms.No.155 and Clause 4 of G.O.Ms.No. 18 were sought to be given an interpretation by the respondent to state that, since the said clauses enabling the employer to consider the other legal heir for the purpose of compassionate appointment, if the family of the deceased Government servant is not looked after by other legal heir, who is already in service and getting a permanent salary even prior to the death of the Government servant. Therefore, the respondent has come to the conclusion that, here in the case in hand, it is not the case, where, one of the legal heir of the deceased Government servant, who not got a job prior to the death of 10/15 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.6606 of 2020 the Government servant, but only after the death of the Government servant. Therefore, even though the said legal heir, who, after getting a Government job permanently, is not able to look after the family of the deceased Government servant, the other legal heir cannot be considered for the compassionate appointment, as such kind of situation is not supported either under paragraph No.3 of the G.O.Ms.No.155 or under Clause 4 of the G.O.Ms.No.18. This interpretation, in the considered opinion of this Court, as has been given by the respondent through the impugned order, is thoroughly detrimental to the intention of the Government, where the Government issued these two G.Os., as illustratively given a situation, where, even if already a legal heir of the deceased Government servant is in a permanent job or a Government job well prior to the death of the Government servant, the other legal heir of the deceased Government servant can be considered for compassionate appointment, provided the other legal heir, who is already in Government job or permanent job, is not looking after the family of the deceased Government servant. The said position or situation is noway inferior than the present situation faced by the writ petitioner and her rest of the family, where, the widow and two children 11/15 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.6606 of 2020 of the deceased Government servant, have been left in lurch without any support and they have been in continuous indigent circumstances or penurious situation, where no one is there in their family to look after or bail out their family.
12. In such circumstances, one legal heir of the deceased Government servant, though got a job in 2013 ie., two years after the death of the Government servant, admittedly, he is not looking after the family of the deceased Government servant. This position has been accepted by the respondent. Therefore, the import of Paragraph No.3 of G.O.Ms.No.155 and Clause 4 of G.O.Ms.No.18 shall be put in with purposive interpretation, where, the Government thought if fit to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment to the other legal heir of a deceased Government servant, even though already a legal heir of the deceased Government servant is in a permanent job, provided, that legal heir, who was already in a permanent job, is not looking after the family or living separately without taking care of the other family members of the deceased Government servant. 12/15 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.6606 of 2020
13. Exactly the situation now prevail in the family of the petitioner can very well be fit in either under Paragraph No.3 of G.O.Ms.No.155 or under clause 4 of G.O.Ms.No.18. Therefore, a negative interpretation sought to be given by the respondent through the impugned order for those clauses of the respective G.Os., by thus, denying the request of the petitioner for consideration of the request of compassionate appointment, cannot be accepted, as such interpretation would destroy the very purpose for which, the G.Os., especially the relevant clauses were issued by the Government.
14. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view, that the reasons cited by the respondent in the impugned order is unsustainable. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with and necessary order to that effect as sought for can be given.
15. In the result, the impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed and there shall be a direction to the respondent to reconsider the application of the petitioner for grant of job suitable to the educational and other qualification of the petitioner.
13/15 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.6606 of 2020
16. Since no other reason has been given except the relevant clause of the G.Os., referred to above, the order granting appointment on compassionate ground can be appreciable. Therefore, the needful, as indicated above, shall be undertaken by the respondent within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
17. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
09.07.2020
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
RR
To
The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. 14/15 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.6606 of 2020 R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
RR W.P.(MD)No.6606 of 2020 09.07.2020 15/15 http://www.judis.nic.in