Madras High Court
J.Selvajanaki vs The Inspector General Of Police on 24 March, 2016
Author: Pushpa Sathyanarayana
Bench: Pushpa Sathyanarayana
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.03.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
W.P(MD)No.5433 of 2016
J.Selvajanaki ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Police,
Technical Services,
Mylapore, Chennai-4.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st
respondent herein in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2/8355/2015, dated
27.11.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein
to provide an appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground.
!For Petitioner : Mr.K.HemaKarthikeyan
For Respondents : Mrs.S.Bharathy
Government Advocate
:ORDER
The petitioner prayed for quashing of the order of the first respondent herein dated 27.11.2015 and for a direction to provide her an appointment on compassionate ground.
2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:
The father of the petitioner, who worked as Sub Inspector of Police (SI-1095), Technical Service in Virudhunagar District, had died on 31.08.2014 in harness, leaving behind him the petitioner's mother, the petitioner and her sister as his legal heirs. The petitioner got married on 20.05.1999 and she has got two sons. The petitioner's sister has also got married and she has been living with her husband. After the demise of her father, only the petitioner is taking care of her mother. She had applied to the respondents for compassionate appointment on 08.06.2015 and the respondents rejected the same by an order dated 27.11.2015, on the ground that the married daughter is not eligible to get appointment under compassionate appointment. Hence, she has filed the present writ petition.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would bring to the notice of this court that in similar circumstances, this Court considered similar issue in W.P.(MD)No.20477 of 2015, dated 09.07.2015 and ordered to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner, without reference to marriage. Hence, he prayed that a similar order may be passed in this writ petition also.
4. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate assailed the said proposition.
5. On perusal of the impugned order, this court finds that the same was passed on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.560, L & E Department, dated 03.08.1977 and G.O.Ms.No.155, L & E Department, dated 16.07.1993. In the impugned order, it is stated that a married daughter is not eligible to get appointment under compassionate ground as per the above mentioned G.Os. It is further stated in the impugned order that as per G.O.Ms.No.165, dated 30.08.2010, when a candidate files an application for compassionate appointment in the position of unmarried daughter and pending application, if the candidate is getting married, he/she can be considered for compassionate appointment, provided he/she fulfills all the other qualifications.
6. In similar circumstances, this Court, in W.P.(MD)No.20477 of 2015, dated 09.07.2015, has held as follows:
?6. I have considered the entire issue including the validity of G.O.Ms.No.165, Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.08.2010 in detail in my order dated 13.04.2015 in W.P.No.10565 of 2015 (R.GOVINDAMMAL VS. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE AND NUTRITIOUS MEAL PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AND OTHERS) and held that G.O.Ms.No.165, Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.08.2010 declining to provide compassionate appointment to married daughter, if she got married before making application for compassionate appointment after the death of her father/mother, who was a Government servant, is violative of the provisions of the Constitution. In that order, I have also considered the judgments of this Court reported in G.GIRIJA VS. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PANCHAYATS), KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT [2008 (5) CTC 686] and KRISHNAVENI VS. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KADAMPARAI ELECTRICITY GENERATION BLOCK, COIMBATORE DISTRICT [ T [2013 (8) MLJ 684].
7. In Govindammal's case (cited supra), I traced the scheme of compassionate appointment in government service with regard to the married daughters. In the original scheme providing compassionate appointment in G.O.Ms.No.560 Labour and Employment Department, dated 03.08.1977, there is a total deprivation for married daughters to seek compassionate appointment. While married sons are eligible to make compassionate appointment, married daughters are ineligible to make application for compassionate appointment.
8. Later, the Government made certain improvements to G.O.Ms.No.560 by issuing G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993 after 16 years of the issuance of the first Government Order viz., G.O.Ms.No.560.
9. G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993 provided compassionate appointment to married daughters of government servant, if the daughter was abandoned by her husband or a divorcee or a widow i.e., G.O.Ms.No.155 included certain categories of married daughters to claim compassionate appointment. However, discriminatory treatment was not removed in total, that is, while marriage is not a pre-condition prescribed in the matter of providing compassionate appointment to sons of a deceased government servant, the same was placed as a condition in the case of daughters.
10. Thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.165, Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.08.2010 was issued making further improvements in the Scheme. As per G.O.Ms.No.165, the married daughter could also claim compassionate appointment, if she was unmarried at the time of making application. In the said Government Order, it is stated that taking into account the decisions of this Court, such relaxation was granted in providing compassionate appointment to the married daughters, who got married subsequent to the death of the Government servant and more particularly after making application for compassionate appointment, i.e, G.O.Ms.No.165 also did not render full justice to women. Still discriminatory treatment was meted out to women. While no such condition is prescribed in the case of a son, that the son shall be unmarried at the time of making application after the death of the deceased government servant, a condition is prescribed in the case of daughter that she shall be unmarried at the time of making application for compassionate appointment.
11. Now a further improvement is made in the scheme providing compassionate appointment by issuing G.O.Ms.No.96, Labour and Employment Department, dated 18.06.2012, providing compassionate appointment to married daughter, if the marriage took place after 29.11.2001.
12. In fact, today i.e, 09.07.2015 in W.P.No.20437 of 2015 [A.Vimala v. The Secretary to Government, L & E Department], I have quashed G.O.Ms.No.96, in so far as it declines compassionate appointment to daughters, who got married prior to 29.11.2001. It is relevant to extract the paragraphs 15 and 16 in this regard:-
"15. In my considered view, this Government order also does not put an end to the discriminatory treatment meted out to the daughters in the matter of providing compassionate appointment. Even as per this Government Order, marriage is a bar for a daughter, if she got married prior to 29.11.2001. The daughters, who got married after 29.11.2001 are alone entitled to seek compassionate appointment based on the death of her father/mother, who was a government servant. There is no explicit reason given as to why the cut-off date was fixed as 29.11.2001.
16. The reference column of G.O.Ms.No.96 refers to G.O.Ms.No.212 P & AR Department, dated 29.11.2001. That Government Order, namely G.O.212, is relating to imposition of ban on recruitment in Government service. Hence, I fail to understand as to how the date viz., 29.11.2001 has any nexus to the object of the scheme providing compassionate appointment to the married daughters. Hence, I have no hesitation to declare that the cut-off date fixed in G.O.Ms.No.96 dated 29.11.2001 is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. By such declaration and by quashing paragraphs 3 and 4 of the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.96 in so far as fixing 29.11.2001 as the cut-off date, the discrimination meted out to married daughters will be totallly wiped out. Accordingly, paragraphs 3 and 4 of G.O.Ms.No.96 Labour and Employment Department, dated 18.06.2012 fixing cut-off date as 29.11.2001 are quashed.?
7. In the case on hand, the petitioner got married on 20.05.1999. As the G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 29.11.2001 was already quashed, the petitioner as a married daughter is eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the purpose of providing employment on compassionate ground to a son or daughter or a near relative of the deceased government servant is only to render assistance to the family, which is found in indigent circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner's case deserves consideration.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2/8355/2015 dated 27.11.2015 is hereby quashed and the first respondent is directed to provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground in respect of any suitable job within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
To
1.The Inspector General of Police, Technical Services, Mylapore, Chennai-4.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar. .