Madras High Court
S.Revathi vs The Director Of School Education on 14 July, 2015
Author: D.Hariparanthaman
Bench: D.Hariparanthaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.07.2015
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.No.21047 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
S.Revathi
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1.The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Vellore,
Vellore District.
...Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief of issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Mu.Mu.No.65593/J1/2013 dated 15.03.2014 and the consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.2751/A1/2013 dated 03.04.2014 and to quash the above said proceedings and for a consequential direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner either as Junior Assistant or in any other suitable post befitting to her qualification on compassionate grounds.
For petitioner : Mr.S.Mani
For Respondents : Mr.S.Navaneehtan, AGP
ORDER
The petitioner claims to be a diploma holder in Civil Engineering and Construction Management, AUTOCAD and also in Clients Server Technology. The petitioner states that her mother was working as Tamil Pandit at E.V.R. Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Vellore. According to the petitioner, her mother died on 17.11.2000, while she was in service leaving behind her husband, five daughters including the petitioner and one minor son as legal heirs. At the time of death, the petitioner was hardly 23 years.
2. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the death of her mother, she made an application to the respondents seeking employment assistance on compassionate ground. She has produced all necessary documents including the legal-heir ship certificate along with her application for employment assistance on compassionate grounds and the same is pending with the 1st respondent for consideration.
3. While so, according to the petitioner, in response to a petition sent by her to the Chief Minster's Special Cell seeking certain details regarding appointment on compassionate ground, she was informed by the 1st respondent by his proceedings in O.Mu.No.49233/J1/2012 dated 11.08.2012 that her request for employment assistance on compassionate ground would be considered when her turn comes, if she is otherwise qualified, on priority basis and she was further directed to submit a letter of proposal through the District Educational Officer concerned. Thereafter the Tahsildar, Vellore, by his proceedings dated 30.03.2013 furnished various details about the family of the deceased government servant including the details of the legal heirs. According to the Tahsildar, none of the members of the family of the deceased government servant are employed either in Government or in Private Sector.
4. While so, the respondents, by way of impugned proceedings, rejected the request of the petitioner for employment assistance on compassionate ground on the ground that all the legal heirs of the deceased government servant after getting married started living separately and none of them depends on the petitioner. Challenging the same and for a consequential relief as stated above, the petitioner is now before this court.
5. I have heard Mr.S.Mani, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Navaneethan, the learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents and also perused the records carefully.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly admit that the petitioner got married on 07.03.2003 and the marriage invitation is enclosed at page No.6 of the typed set of papers. But, according to him, on the date when she made application for employment assistance on compassionate ground she was not married and in the light of the judgement of a Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.975 of 2011 dated 03.02.2015 [The Joint Director of School Education, Higher Secondary (Vocational), Chennai-6 and another v. S.Prema] and an order of this W.P.No.16153 of 2015 dated 09.06.2015 [S.Kavitha v. The District Collector, Tirupur District, Tirupur. and others] the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for.
7. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would be fair enough to concede the legal position in this regard.
8. It is not in dispute that the mother of the petitioner died on 17.11.2000 and the petitioner made her application for employment assistance on compassionate ground on 15.12.2000. Admittedly, the petitioner got married on 07.03.2003. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.165, Labour & Employment Department, dated 30.08.2010 states as follows:-
,e;epiyapy;. fUiz mog;gilapyhd gzp epakd';fs; nfhUk; neh;t[fspy;/ gzpapil kuzkile;j muR Chpahpd; beU';fpa cwtpdh;fs; vd tiuaWf;fg;gl;Lsss egh;fspy;/ jpUkzkhfhj kfs; vd;w epiyapy; gzp epakdk; nfhhp tpz;zg;gk; mspj;J / gzp epakdk; tH';fg;gLtjw;F Kd;dnu jpUkzk; bra;J bfhz;lth;fs;s fUizaog;gilapyhd gzp epakdj;jpw;F ,ju jFjpfis epiw[t bra;a[k; gl;rj;jpy;. mth;fSf;Fk; gzp epakdk; tH';fpl tHptif bra;a[k; tifapy; fPH;fz;l bjspt[iu tH';fp ,jd;K:yk; Mizaplg;gLfpwJ:-
(1) jpUkzkhfhj epiyapy; cs;s bgz;dqf;F. mf;FLk;gj;jpy; cs;s gpw thhpRjhuh;fs; mspj;j kWg;gpd;ik rhd;wpwjH;/ jpUkzkhd gpd;. mg;bgz;dqf;F gzp mspf;fg;gLk; nghJ. kPz;Lk; kw;w thhpRjhuh;fshy; kWg;gpd;ikr; rhd;wpjH; tH';fg;gl ntz;Lk;/ (2) jpUkzk; bra;J bfhz;l gpd;dh; gzp tha;g[ bgWk; jdpah; jdJ bgw;nwhhpd; FLk;gj;jpw;F cjtpg[hpa[k; tifapy; cWjp Mtzk; tH';fg;gl ntz;Lk;/ (3) fUiz mog;gilapy; gzptha;g;g[ nfhhpa[s;s jpUkzkhfhj bgz;izj; jpUkz;k bra;J bfhs;stpUf;Fk; egh;. vjph;fhyj;jpy; mtuhy; mtuJ bgw;nwhUf;F bra;a[k; cjtpf;F kWg;g[ VJk; Vw;gLj;j khl;nld; vd;w cWjp bkhHpia mspf;f ntz;Lk;/
9. It is very clear from the above said GO that the object sought to be achieved is for providing appointment on compassionate grounds to the applicants-daughters to mitigate the sufferings of the bereaved families and the person to be given compassionate appointment is having the duty of maintaining the deceased-fathers'/mother's family, as the case may be, in order to get rid of the indigent circumstances.
10. Thus, the G.O.Ms.No.165 has provided compassionate appointment to a married duaghter, if the daughter was unmarried at the time of making of the application for compassionate appointment after the death of the Government servant.
11. Hence, as per this G.O.Ms.No.165, the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment.
12. It is useful to refer to my judgement dated 13.04.2015 in W.P.No.10565 of 2015 [R.Gvoindammal v. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department and others] wherein, I have 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 the Government servant, is violative of the provision of the Constitution.
13. In fact, on 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 as 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.
14. In view of the above, this court is of the considered view that the impugned order refusing to provide employment assistance is liable to be quashed and the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
15. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground within a period of eight weeks from the the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.
14.07.2015 kmk Note: Issue copy on 27.08.2015.
To
1.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai.
2.The District Educational Officer, Vellore, Vellore District.
D.HARIPARANTHAMAN.J., kmk W.P.No.21047 of 2015 14.07..2015