High Court · 2025

W.P.No.25677 of 2014IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 28.01.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGANW.P.No.25677 of 2014and M.P.No. 1 of 2014S.Ramachandran ... Petitioner Vs.1.The Government of Tamil Nadurep.by the Secretary,Social Welfare & Nutritious Meal Programme Department,Fort St.George, Chennai-92.The Commissioner,Tirupathur Panchayat Union,Tirupathur, Vellore District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, prayed to issue Writ of Certiarified Mandamus, calling for records pertaining to the order in proceeding with the impugned order bearing Na.Ka.No.843/2010/PG1 dated 15.07.2014 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to give appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner.1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25677 of 2014 For Petitioner : Mr.V.Thirupathi For R1 & R2 : Mr.P.Ananda Kumar Government Advocate For R3 : M/s.M.E.Rani SelvamO R D E RThis Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.07.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent and seeking a consequential direction to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds. 2.The petitioner's father R.Srinivasan, was employed as a Noon Meal Organizer in the 3rd respondent panchayat. While in service, he died on 04.02.2001 leaving behind his wife, two daughters [S.Manimegalai and Kalaivani] and his son, the petitioner herein, as legal heirs. The petitioner, who had completed 10th standard belongs to Most Backward Community, sought a compassionate appointment. 3.In this regard, the petitioner's mother submitted a representation on 07.03.2001 seeking compassionate relief. However, the claim was rejected by the 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25677 of 20143rd respondent on 20.04.2001, stating that there was no provision for compassionate appointment under the Noon Meal Scheme. Later, the petitioner submitted another representation on 04.09.2008, seeking the same relief in the light of G.O.Ms.No.198, Social Welfare & Nutritious Meal Scheme, dated 25.10.2007. Subsequently, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.25384 of 2008, which was disposed of on 23.10.2008 with a direction to the respondent to consider the application on merits. Despite this direction, the 2nd respondent rejected the petitioner's claim by order dated 15.07.2014. Assailing the same, the petitioner is before this Court.4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that when compassionate appointment is provided under the scheme for employees working under the Noon Meal Scheme, the petitioner had applied for relief. However, his application was rejected on the ground that, being a male, he is not entitled to claim the relief. The learned counsel further submitted that denying the petitioner's claim only on the basis of the gender amounts to discrimination, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25677 of 20145.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the benefits granted under the compassionate employment are governed by the G.O.Ms.No.198 dated 25.10.2007. As per the scheme, only female members of a deceased Noon Meal Organizer are entitled to the benefits. Since the petitioner has not challenged the scheme, the rejection of his claim is perfectly in order and sought for dismissal of the petition.6.The learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought. Since the petitioner does not fall within the eligibility criteria under the Scheme, his claim was rightly rejected.7.It is not in dispute that the deceased employee, R.Srinivasan, was employed as a Noon Meal Organizer under the 3rd respondent panchayat and died in service on 04.02.2001. As per the legal heirship certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Tirupathur, the deceased employee died on 14.02.2001 and is survived by his wife, Selvam, two daughters, Manimegalai and Kalaivani and his son Ramachandran, the petitioner herein.4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25677 of 20148.Earlier, when the petitioner's mother applied to the respondent seeking for compassionate appointment on 07.03.2001, there was no scheme for appointing legal heirs on compassionate ground on the death of an employee who worked under the Noon Meal Scheme. Consequently, her request was rejected on 20.04.2001.9.However, later G.O.Ms.No.198, Social Welfare & Nutritious Meal Scheme, dated 25.10.2007, came to be issued, providing a scheme for the compassionate appointment of the deceased Noon Meal Organizer's legal heirs. Based on this scheme, the petitioner has made a representation on 04.09.2008, seeking relief under G.O.Ms.No.198 dated 25.10.2007.10. As per Clause 5 of the G.O.Ms.No.198, which prescribes the conditions basis on which compassionate appointment could be granted. The relevant Clause 5 are as follows:-@5/ nkny Ie;jpy; gof;fg;gl;l gy;ntW rj;Jzt[ gzpahsh;fs; - CHpah; r';f';fspd; nfhhpf;ifapid muR ftdKld; ghprPyid 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25677 of 2014bra;J. mth;fsJ nfhhpf;ifapid Vw;W gpd;tUkhW Miz btspaplg;gLfpwJ/●muRg; gzpapl';fspy; fhypg;gzpapl';fis g[{h;j;jp bra;a fUiz mog;gilapyhd gzp epakd';fSf;F tpjpf;fg;gl;l jilahizia tpyf;fpf; bfhs;sg;gl;l epiyapy;. g[ul;rpj; jiyth; vk;/$p/Mh;/ rj;Jzt[j; jpl;lk;. xU';fpize;j FHe;ijfs; tsh;r;rp gzpfs; jpl;lk; Mfpa jpl;l';fspy; gzpahw;wp tUk;nghJ fhykhd gzpahsh;fspd; bgz; thhpRjhuh;fSf;F rj;Jzt[j; jpl;l';fspy; rj;Jzt[ mikg;ghsh; - FHe;ijfs; ika gzpahsh; - rj;Jzt[ rikayh;. cjtpahsh; kw;Wk; FHe;ijfs; ika cjtpahsh;fshf gzp epakdk; bra;a me;je;j khtl;l Ml;rpj; jiyth;fSf;F mDkjp mspf;fg;gLfpwJ/ mt;thW gzp epakdk; bra;Jtpl;L mJ gw;wpa tptu';fis muRf;F bjhptpf;f ntz;Lk;/●brd;id khefuhl;rp FHe;ijfs; ika';fspy; gzpahw;Wk; gzpahsh;fspd; 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25677 of 2014bgz; thhpRjhuh;fSf;F fUiz mog;gilapy; gzp tH';f ,af;Feh;. xU';fpize;j FHe;ijfs; tsh;r;rp gzpfs; jpl;lk;. brd;id ? 113 mth;fSf;Fk;. g[ul;rpj; jiyth; vk;/$p/Mh;/ rj;Jzt[j; jpl;l gzpahsh;fspd; bgz; thhpRjhuUf;F fUiz mog;gilapy; gzp tH';f rK:f ey ,af;Feh; mth;fSf;Fk; mjpfhuk; tH';fp Miz btspaplg;gLfpwJ/●nkw;fhqk; fUiz mog;gilapyhd gzp epakd';fSf;F fy;tpj; jFjp. taJ. J}ur; Rw;wst[ bgz; thhpR ,y;yhj epiyapy; Mz; thhpRjhuUf;F gzp tH';Fjy; nghd;w neh;t[fSf;F tpjpj; jsh;t[fs; Vjk; njitg;god; muRf;F jf;f Kd;bkhHpt[fis mDg;gp murpd; Kd; mDkjp bgw ntz;Lk; vdt[k; Miz btspaplg;gLfpwJ/@7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25677 of 201411. As per the first portion of Clause 5, if an employee working under the Noon Meal Scheme dies while in service, the female child i.e., the daughter of the deceased employee will be entitled to a compassionate appointment in any one of posts in the scheme, based on the approval granted by the District Collector of the concerned district, which will later be intimated to the Government. Further, as per the 3rd column under Clause 5, in cases where any relaxation is required in respect of educational qualification, age, distance or if a female child is not available, the proposal for considering the male child can be forwarded to the Government for obtaining the necessary relaxation.12. In view of the above scheme, it is evident that only a female child is entitled to claim compassionate appointment on the death of an employee under the Noon Meal Scheme. However, if no female child is available, only in such circumstances, can a male child submit an application and the concerned authorities shall forward the proposal to the Government seeking for relaxation.13. In the instant case, it is admitted that two female children, Manimegalai and Kalaivani, who are the legal heirs of the deceased R.Srinivasan, are available. 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25677 of 2014However, neither of them has made an application seeking for compassionate appointment. 14. In such circumstances, since only the petitioner has made an application seeking for benefits under the scheme and as the scheme does not provide for the appointment of a male member when the female members are available in the family, the respondent has rightly rejected the claim through the impugned order dated 15.07.2014. Further, the petitioner has not challenged the conditions which are contained under the scheme in G.O.Ms.No.198, dated 25.10.2007. Therefore, the arguments raised by the petitioner are unsustainable.15. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There is no order as to costs. 28.01.2025Index : Yes/NoNeutral Citation : Yes/Norpl9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25677 of 2014G.ARUL MURUGAN ,J. rplTo1.The Secretary,Government of Tamil NaduSocial Welfare & Nutritious Meal Programme Department,Fort St.George, Chennai-92.The Commissioner,Tirupathur Panchayat Union,Tirupathur, Vellore District.W.P.No.25677 of 201428.01.202510/10