IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:19.01.2010 CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.1642/2009 S.Rani ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The Director of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Chennai. 2.The Deputy Director, Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Public Health Office, Erode. ... Respondents Prayer : The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order dated 14.11.2008 made in Na.Ka.No.6693/A2/08 passed by the second respondent herein, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents herein to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in the place of her father late Subramaniam who died in harness on 14.11.2001 by considering her application dated 23.10.2006. For Petitioner :Mr.N.Manoharan For Respondents :Mr.P.Subramani Addl Govt. pleader for RR1-2 ORDER
By consent the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal. The above Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the 2nd Respondent dated 14.11.2008 and to direct the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner on compassionate ground in the place of her father who died in harness on 14.11.2001 by considering her application dated 23.10.2006.
2. The Petitioner’s father R.Subramanian was working as a Driver in the Primary Health Centre at Ukkaram and died in harness on 14.11.2001, leaving behind his wife and two daughters. The Petitioner is one of the daughters of the said Subramanian. It is stated that the Petitioner sought for appointment on compassionate ground on 05.06.2002 but the Medical Officer of the Primary Health Centre refused to entertain her application stating that the Government by G.O.Ms.No.212, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 29.11.2001 had imposed a ban on recruitment and the ban was also extended to appointment on compassionate ground by Government letter dated 1.3.2002.
3. The ban on recruitment was lifted by the Government by G.O.Ms.No.14 dated 7.2.2006 and the ban on appointment on compassionate ground was also cancelled by G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 21.2.2006. The ban which was imposed by the government letter dated 1.3.2002 for filling up of post by temporary appointment on compassionate grounds was also cancelled in G.O.Ms.No.61 dated 19.7.2006.
4. Thereafter the Petitioner is stated to have once again submitted her application on 23.10.2006 seeking appointment on compassionate ground enclosing all relevant records. The application submitted by the Petitioner was rejected by the impugned order dated 14.11.2008 stating that the Petitioner is married and therefore in terms of G.O.Ms.No.560, Labour Department dated 3.8.1977, a married daughter is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is relevant to note that the Petitioner’s father died in harness on 14.11.2001 and the Petitioner’s first request for appointment on compassionate ground was on 5.6.2002 which was refused to be entertained since there was ban on recruitment, only after the ban came to be lifted in July 2006, the Petitioner had again submitted her application dated 23.10.2006, in the interregnum the petitioner married Thiru.Malaisamy on 3.11.2003.
5. The correctness of the impugned order is assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that the Petitioner’s marriage which took place on 3.11.2003 would in no way alter her family situation on the death of her father and her marriage has no nexus with the policy of the Government appointing the Petitioner on compassionate ground and such restriction is violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. As rightly pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, this issue has been settled by a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench considered the validity of a similar Government Order as referred in the impugned order stating that only unmarried daughter is eligible to apply for appointment on compassionate ground. The Hon’ble Division Bench in U.Arulmozhi vs. The Director of School Education and others, [2006 2 L.W. 324] held as follows:-
“8. There is no dispute that the Government has made provision for appointment on compassionate ground, obviously with a view to enable the family members of the deceased employee to tide over immediately the financial stringency on account of the death of the breadwinner in the family.
It is of course true that as per the G.O.Ms.No.73, Employment Services dated 26.10.1983, only an unmarried daughter is eligible and not a married daughter. However, there is no requirement in the G.O. That at the time of actual employment such unmarried daughter should continue to be unmarried nor there is any requirement that after an unmarried daughter gets employment on the compassionate ground, she cannot marry in future. There is no dispute that the present Petitioner was eligible to make the application and she made an application as an unmarried daughter. The appropriate authority took about 3 to 4 years to finalize the matter. Merely because the unmarried daughter got married in the meantime and that too with a specific understanding that her husband would have no objection to her maintaining the members of the family of her father, it cannot be said that such person had got employment by suppressing any material facts.
9. We have also perused the format in which such applications are required to be made. There is no column in such format to indicate that an applicant at the time of her employment is required to disclose whether she is married in the meantime nor there is any requirement that an unmarried daughter after getting such appointment on compassionate ground is required to remain as a spinster for ever. If an unmarried daughter after getting employment on compassionate ground has liberty to marry, we fail to understand as to why an unmarried daughter, who makes such application and is otherwise eligible, keeping in view the financial aspect, would be deprived of the right of getting employment, more particularly when there is no objection raised by any other eligible person. As a matter of fact, in the present case, the mother and the Petitioner’s brother, who has become major in the meantime, have filed affidavits stating that they have no objection to the Petitioner continuing in service.”
6. The Judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench was followed in G.Girija vs. The Assistant Director (Panchayats), [2008 (5) CTC 686].
Thus in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench which has been followed by a Learned Single Judge as stated Supra, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
7. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the Respondents are directed to issue an order of appointment to the Petitioner on compassionate ground on account of the demise of her father in harness, without reference to her marriage. The Respondents are directed to comply with the direction within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.
Pbn
To
1.The Director of Public Health &
Preventive Medicine,
Chennai.
2.The Deputy Director,
Public Health & Preventive Medicine,
Public Health Office,
Erode