G. Babu v. Government Tamilnadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 19.08.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMANW.P.No.5721 of 2007G. Babu, .. PetitionerVersus1. The Government Tamilnadu, Rep by its secretary, Educational Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.2.Director of School Education,College Road,Chennai – 600 006. 3.District Educational Officer,Karur District,Karur. ..RespondentsPRAYER: This writ petition came to be numbered under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.605 of 2002from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayerto call for the records connected with the impugned order passed bythe 3rd respondent in his letter No. O.Mu.No.9609/A1/2000 dated9.3.2001 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to considerthe claim of the applicant for appointment on Compassionate Groundsin any suitable post under the control of the 2nd respondent, inaccordance with his qualification. For petitioner ... Mr. R. RengaramanujamFor Respondents ... Ms. C.K.VishnupriyaAdditional Government PleaderORDER Heard, Mr. R.Rengaramanujam, the learned counsel forpetitioner and Ms.C.K.Vishnupriya, the learned Additional GovernmentPleader for the respondents.2. The Original application in O.A.No. 605 of 2002 (W.P.No.5721of 2007) has been filed to quash the order, dated 09.03.2001, of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ third respondent, namely, the District Educational officer, Karur,rejecting the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointmenton the death of his mother.3. The mother of the petitioner was employed as a SecondaryGrade Teacher in Panchayat Union Primary School at Pallapatti ofAravakurichi Panchayat Union. She unfortunately died on 03.02.1993due to snake bite, leaving behind the petitioner, who is the son ofdeceased and two daughters, besides her husband. 4. The sole reason for passing the impugned order is that thefather of the petitioner was employed in an aided school, as a CraftTeacher and according to impugned order, if any of the members of thedeceased Government servant is in employment, whether in Governmentor otherwise, the dependents of the deceased Government servant arenot entitled to compassionate appointment, in view of G.O.Ms.No.998,Labour and Employment Department, dated 2.5.1981.5. It is true that the aforesaid Government Order inG.O.Ms.No.998, Labour and Employment Department, dated 2.5.1981,makes it clear that if any member of the family of the deceasedgovernment servant is in employment, the dependent members of thedeceased government servant are not eligible for compassionateappointment. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner hasbrought to my notice the later Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.155,Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.7.93, wherein theaforesaid G.O.Ms.No.998, Labour and Employment Department, dated2.5.1981, was also referred to. The relevant paragraphs of the saidG.O 155 is extracted hereunder:-" 1. One of the conditions prescribed under the schemeof appointment on compassionate grounds formulated in theG.O. first read above is that the family of deceasedGovernment servant should be in 'indigent circumstances'.Another condition introduced in the G.O. third read aboveis that if there is already any earning member in thefamily of the Government servant who died in harmness, theother dependents of the deceased Government servant willnot be eligible for compassionate appointment. 2. The Government have re-examined the above mentionedconditions. The expression 'indigent circumstances' hasnot been precisely defined. It has been left mostly tothe subjective satisfaction of the appointing authorities.Therefore the Service Associations have represented thatthis condition be deleted. The family of a deceasedGovernment servant is entitled Provident Fundaccumulations, Family Benefit, Death-cum-RetirementGratuity, Encashment of leave at credit at the time of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ death etc., The Government consider that those amounts orthe interest earnings that will accrue on depositing theseamount, need not be taken into consideration. It istherefore necessary to ascertain whether the family ishaving immovable property like houses, lands etc., theincome from which is substantial to sustain the familywithout any extra help. The Government therefore directthat the criteria for indigent circumstances is that thefamily should not own any house or landed properties orif owned, the income from which is insufficient to sustainthe family. A certificate from the Tahsildar to thiseffect will have to be produced. 3. In regard to the second condition mentioned in para1 above, it is considered that if a member of the family isalready in employment and supports the family then therestriction may be applied. When a dependent of the familyis employed, the factors tobe ascertained are, whether heis regularly employed and is actually supporting thefamily. If that person was employed even before the deathof the Government servant and was living separately withoutextending any help to the family, then the case of othereligible dependents will be considered". 6. In para 3 of the said G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and EmploymentDepartment, dated 16.7.93, it is stated that if a member of thefamily is in employment and supports the family, it has to beascertained whether he is regularly employed and he is actuallysupporting the family. If such a person in employment is notactually supporting the family, then it goes without saying that thefamily has no support, and in such circumstances, the Government lendits hand by providing compassionate appointment, on the death ofthe Government servant.7. In this case, the respondent has filed a reply affidavitand para 3 of the reply affidavit is extracted hereunder:- "Her husband Thiru D. Gnanamuthu, Weaving Instructor,Pallapatti Higher Secondary School, Pallapatti was on leavefrom 19.1.90 to 24.3.93 and continued his leave on loss ofpay on Medical Certificate. He was referred to the MedicalBoard by the Management and the Medical Board recommendedfor Medical invalidation on 4.4.94 and he was permitted toretire on Medical invalidation by the Management on thebasis of the report of the Medical Board with effect from4.4.94." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. As per Para-3 of the reply affidavit, the father of thepetitioner was admittedly working in an aided school. But, he was onleave from 19.1.1990 to 24.3.1993 and continued his leave on loss ofpay on medical certificate. That is, the father of the petitionerwas on leave at loss of pay from the year 1990 onwards. That is,even before the death of the mother of the petitioner on 03.02.1993,the father of the petitioner was sick and ultimately, he was retireddue to medical invalidation, on 4.4.94. It is stated that thereafter,he died on 09.06.2001. Thus, the father of the petitioner did notsupport the family, though he was technically in employment, beforethe death of his mother. The emphasis in G.O.155 is to ascertain,whether the family of the deceased Government servant has the supportfrom any other members of the family. If the answer is "no", then thefamily of the deceased Government servant is entitled to seekcompassionate appointment.9. Therefore, from the facts as disclosed in the counteraffidavit, the father of the petitioner, though in employment, didnot support the family, even in the year, 1990 itself. Therefore,as per para 3 of the G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour and Employment Department,dated 16.07.1993, the dependent family members are entitled tocompassionate employment on the death of Tmt. Kamalam, the SecondaryGrade Teacher. But, unfortunately the third respondent had failed totake into account the letter and spirit of the G.O.Ms.No.155 Labourand Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993.10. Hence, the Impugned order is contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.155Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993. Hence, the sameis quashed and the third respondent is directed to consider theapplication for compassionate appointment by the petitioner in thelight of the G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour and Employment Department, dated16.07.1993, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receiptof this order.The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. smsSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar To1. The secretary, Educational Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. 3.District Educational Officer,Karur District,Karur.+ 1 CC to the Government Pleader (SR.No.40302) W.P.No.5721 of 2007GG(CO)VC(23.09.2009)