Madras High Court
S.Chandrika vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 December, 2017
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R. Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.12.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR W.P.No.23350 of 2004 and W.M.P.No.28276 of 2004 S.Chandrika Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Department of Labour and Employment, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The Joint Director of School Education, Chennai-6. 3.The District Education Officer, Thiruppathur, Vellore District. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to give employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground in the place of her mother S.Kannammal, who died in harness on 11.01.1991 by considering her representation dated 13.12.1999. For Petitioner : Ms.K.Jenitha For Respondents : Mr.A.Zakir Hussain Government Advocate ORDER
The prayer sought for in this Writ Petition is for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to give an employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground in the place of her mother S.Kannammal, who died in harness on 11.01.1991 by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 13.12.1999 and pass orders.
2.It is the case of the petitioner that her mother, while was working as a Teacher in a Union High School, Kathandapatti, died in harness on 11.01.1991. Thereafter, the petitioner's brother one Soundararajan seems to have submitted an application under Die-inharness Scheme, seeking compassionate appointment to the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment on 13.12.1999. The petitioner, at the time of her death was unmarried, however, subsequently, she got married on 23.08.1993. Thereafter, by an order of this Court in HMOP No.43 of 1999 at Sub Court, Vellore, divorce decree was passed by the Sub Court between the petitioner and her husband and only thereafter, since the petitioner have two children, without any support in her family, her mother died, and her father, aged about 73 years old, suffered with illness, the petitioner had made the said application to the respondents dated 13.12.1999.
3.The said application made by the petitioner was forwarded by the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Jolarpet, to the District Educational Officer, Tirupathur, on 17.12.1999. Thereafter, enquiry proceedings and departmental proceedings were initiated at the respondent/Department, however, no fruitful action has been forth coming from the Department, as the petitioner has submitted her application on compassionate ground only. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition in the year 2004.
4.I have heard Ms.K.Jenitha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr.A.Zakir Hussain, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
5.The learned Government Advocate has heavily relied upon various grounds in the counter affidavit, which has been reproduced hereunder:
4.It is submitted that, based on the above letter received from the husband of the deceased Government servant and other informations available on records, the proposals submitted by the Writ Petitioner was scrutinized by the Director of School Education. On Scrutiny of the application it revealed that, in the family of the deceased Government servant, other than the Writ Petitioner every body is in a good and respectable position in the society.
In accordance with Government Order 998, Labour and Employment Department dated 02.05.1981, it is stated that at the time of death of the Government servant any member of the family is a earning member, there is no need to consider the deceased government servant's family for employment on compassionate grounds. In G.O.(Ms).No.560, Labour and Employment Department, dated 03.08.1977 and in G.O.(Ms).No.42, Labour and Employment Department, dated 12.03.2007 (copy enclosed) it is also stated that the appointing authorities shall examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased Government servant and offer a job to an eligible member of the family only after satisfying themselves.
5.It is submitted that the main motto and aim of implementing the scheme of employment on compassionate grounds is when the Government servant died in harness leaving the family in indigent circumstances, to overcome such situation the compassionate grounds appointment is given to the spouse of the deceased Government servant or the eligible eldest legal heir of the family, which is laid down in Government letter No.6897/M1/97-2, dated 05.06.1967 (copy enclosed). But, in certain cases the compassionate ground employment is applied to the legal heir in the family after the retirement or after marriage of the family member. The compassionate grounds employment is not a hierarchy it is based on the indigent circumstances of the family and the qualification of the family members of the deceased Government servant.
6.In view of the Government Orders, the petitioners since had not been applied within three years period from the date of the death of the Government servant and also, the other family members i.e., two other sisters of the petitioner are well, one among them is running a School by herself, the petitioner is having every support in family and the petitioner cannot be considered to be in penurious circumstances and therefore, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered at this moment. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that insofar as the other family members are concerned, they did not support the petitioner in any way and the petitioner is being the mother of two children without husband and the mother has already died, having an aged father and struggled a lot to lead her family everyday. Considering the genuine request only, the Authorities of the respondents has forwarded the applications submitted by the petitioner to the next higher Authorities for appropriate action in this regard.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the application of the petitioner so far has not been considered and no orders have been passed, inspite of the same having been forwarded to the 2nd respondent as early as in the year 2010 itself during the pendency of the Writ Petition. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the prayer sought for in this Writ Petition has to be considered and granted.
8.I have considered the rival submissions made by both sides and perused the materials with regard to the fact as set out above, there can be no quarrel on those issues. The petitioner, being one of the legal heirs of the Government Servant i.e., her mother, had applied for compassionate appointment, of course, not within three years. The reason for the belated application is that at that time, the petitioner got married, subsequently, the petitioner was divorced by her husband, she became helpless with two children, she struggled a lot and applied with No Objection Certificate from all other family members.
9.Considering the genuineness on the part of the petitioner, the said application submitted by the petitioner seems to have been forwarded to the higher authorities. Though the Writ Petition is filed in the year 2004, during the pendency of the Writ Petition in the year 2010, the District Educational Officer, Thiruppathur, Vellore District, has forwarded the application to the petitioner with his recommendation to the 2nd respondent on 20.10.2010. The relevant portion of the said communication of the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent reads thus:
ntY}h; khtl;lk; jpUg;gj;J}h; fy;tp khtl;lk; n$hyhh;ngl;il xd;wpak; nfjhz;lg;gl;o Cuhl;rp xd;wpa eLepiyg; gs;spapy; ,ilepiy Mrphpauhf gzpahw;wp 11.01.1991y; kuzKw;w jpUkjp.v!;.fz;zk;khs; vd;ghhpd; thhpR jpUkjp.vy;.re;jphpfh (tpjit) fUiz mog;gilapy; 17.12.1999 gzptha;g;g[ nfhhpa nfhhpf;if ghh;it 1y; fhz; jkpH;ehL gs;spf; fy;tp ,iz ,af;Feh; (gzpahsh;j; bjhFjp) mth;fspd; bray;Kiwfspy; Fwpg;gpl;l mwpt[iugo ghh;it 2y; fhz; ,t;tYtyf bray;Kiwfspy; epuhfhpj;J mDg;gg;gl;lJ.
ghh;it-3y; fhz; n$hyhh;ngl;il cjtpj; bjhlf;f fy;tp mYtyh; mth;fspd; bray;Kiw \yk; bgwg;gl;l jpUkjp.v!;.re;jphpfh vd;ghhpd; nky;KiwaPl;L fUj;JU ghprPypf;fg;gl;lJ. mjpy; Kjd; Kjypy; fUjiz mog;gilapy; gzptha;g;g[ nfhhp (muR CHpah; ,we;j \d;whz;LfSf;Fs;) kDjhuhpd; jk;gpahd v!;.brse;jpuuh$d; vd;ghh;f;F gzptha;g;g[ nfhhpa fUj;JU epuhfhpf;fg;gl;likf;F Mjhuk; ,izf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. mg;nghJ muR CHpah; ,wg;gjw;F Kd; jpUkjp.v!;.re;jphpfh vd;ghh;f;F jpUkzk; eilbgwtpy;iy vd;Dk;/ mjd; gpd;dh; 23.08.1993y; jpUkzk; eilgbw;w fztdhy; iftplg;gl;L ePjpkd;wk; \yk; 07.10.1999 md;W tpthfuj;J bgw;Ws;shh;. mjd; gpd;dh; jdf;F gzptha;g;g[ nfhhp fUj;JU 17.12.1999y; tpz;zg;gpf;fg;gl;L mt;tpz;zg;gk; ghprPyidf;F gpd;dh; ghh;it 2y; fhz; ,t;tYtyf bray;Kiwfspy; epuhfhpf;fg;gl;lJ jw;nghJ 16.09.2010 ehspl;l nky;KiwaPl;L kDtpy; jd;Dila jk;gp v!;.brse;jh;uh$d; vd;ghh;f;F gzptha;g;g[ nfhhpa fUj;JU ,t;tYtyf K.K.vz;.1735/m1/91/ ehs; 04.02.1999y; jpUg;gp mDg;gg;gl;ljhy; mg;nghJ jd;Dila tpthfuj;J tHf;F ePjpkd;wj;jpy; epYitapypUe;jJ vd;Wk; 07.10.1999y; tpthfuj;J Miz ePjpkd;wk; \yk; tH';fg;gl;lJ vd;Wk; gzptha;g;g[ nfhhp tpthfuj;J Miz bgwg;gl;l gpd;dh; jdf;F 17.12.1999y; tpz;zg;gpj;njd; vd;Wk; bjhptpj;J Mjhukhf ePjpkd;w Miz ,izj;Jk; kPs gzptha;g;g[ ntz;oa nky;KiwaPL kD chpa tHpahf tpz;zg;gpj;Js;shh;. mt;tpz;zg;gk; ghprPyidf;fhf ,j;Jld; ,izj;J gzpe;J mDg;gp itf;fpnwd;.
khtl;lf; fy;tp mYtyh;/ jpUg;gj;J}h;
,izg;g[:
1.nky;KiwPaL tpz;zg;gk;
10.Though such a recommendation having been made forwarding the application by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, no action has been taken by the 2nd respondent and no order to that effect has been passed. However, the learned Government Advocate by relying upon the paragraphs made in the counter affidavit would state that an order to that effect has been passed in Na.Ka.No.104931/J1/2010 dated ..12.2010, by the 2nd respondent. However, the petitioner has denied the receipt of any such order and the respondents have not produced the copy of such order.
11.Be that as it may, if at all, any consideration has been made on the application of the petitioner and if the same has been decided already as claimed by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, in the year 2010 itself, a copy of the same shall be furnished to the petitioner and on receipt of the same, it is for the petitioner to work out her remedy in the manner known to law. If no orders so far has been passed, it is for the respondents to consider the genuine request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, of course, on the basis of the relevant records produced by the petitioner and as per rule in respect of making compassionate appointment.
12.In the result, the following orders are passed in this Writ Petition:
(1)If the application of the petitioner dated 13.12.1999 as forwarded by the 3rd respondent, vide his proceedings No.5810/M4/2010, dated 20.10.2010 to the 2nd respondent, is not considered and no order so far has been passed, the same shall be considered and pass orders taking into account the penurious and indigent circumstances of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(2)If any order was passed on the application of the petitioner to that effect, a copy of the same shall be forwarded to the petitioner by Registered Post with Acknowledge Due.
With these directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
06.12.2017 Index :yes/no Internet :yes/no speaking order /non speaking order mps To
1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Labour and Employment, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2.The Joint Director of School Education, Chennai-6.
3.The District Education Officer, Thiruppathur, Vellore District.
R. SURESH KUMAR, J, mps W.P.No.23350 of 2004& W.M.P.No.28276 of 2004 06.12.2017