The Hon Madras HC has ordered that Even married daughters eligible 4 compassionate job’s on father’s death, with NOC from other heirs
We applaud this far reaching and compassionate order by the HC. IF the government is kind enough to consider un married and married daughters on the same footing and provide them benefits from the father’s side, why is that the HUSBAND ALONE is asked to pay alimony in the same country / court !! ?
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.01.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P(MD)No.1985 of 2016
M.Hemakarthiga … Petitioner
Vs.
1)The Chief Engineer (Personnel),
TANGEDCO,
144, Anna salai,
Chennai.
2)The Superintending Engineer,
Virudhunagar Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO,
Virudhunagar-626 001. … Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records
relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Letter No.
019785/NB2/UDAVI.2/KO.VARISU VELAI/2015 dated 11.11.2015 quash the same
and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on
compassionate ground based on her qualification within time limit stipulated
by this Hon’ble court.
!For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sivaji
^For Respondents : Mr.G.Kasinathadurai
:O R D E R
The father of the petitioner was working as a Foreman under the second respondent. He died on 28.10.2014, while in service, leaving his wife, two daughters and mother as legal heirs. The petitioner who is one of the daughters of the deceased employee, got married prior to the death of the employee.
2.After getting No Objection Certificate from the other legal heirs, when the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment, the said request was rejected by the second respondent by the impugned order dated 11.11.2015 on the sole ground that the petitioner is a married daughter and hence she is not entitled to compassionate appointment.http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
3.This writ petition is filed against the aforesaid order dated 11.11.2015 of the second respondent and to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
4.Heard both sides.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents are not correct in relying on B.P (Ch)No.330, Administrative Branch, dated 02.11.1993, to deny compassionate appointment. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the TANGEDCO issued B.P.No.13, Administrative Branch dated 08.08.2011 which is the latest one and the same is based on G.O.Ms.No.165, Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.08.2010. It is also submitted that the said TANGEDCO always follows the scheme relating to compassionate appointment that is applicable to the Government servant and he has brought to my notice that B.P (Ch)No.330, Administrative Branch, dated 02.11.1993 is based on G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993 and B.P.No.13, Administrative Branch dated 08.08.2011 is based on G.O.Ms.No.165, Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.08.2010.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Government passed G.O.Ms.No.96, Labour and Employment Department, dated 18.06.2012 after passing G.O.Ms.No.165, Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.08.2010. He has also submitted that this Court considered the aforesaid Government Orders in W.P.No.20437 of 2015 dated 09.07.2015 [A.Vimala V. The Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department] and as per the said order, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment. The learned counsel has submitted that there is no male issue to the deceased employee and he had left behind his wife, two daughters and mother as legal heirs.
7.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has sought to sustain the impugned order placing reliance on B.P (Ch)No.330, Administrative Branch, dated 02.11.1993.
8.I have considered the submissions made by either side.
9.It is useful to extract clause 1(iii) of B.P (Ch)No.330, Administrative Branch, dated 02.11.1993.
”Only the dependants viz. Wife/Husband/Son/Unmarried daughter are eligible for appointment married daughter deserted by her husband/widowed or divorced daughter living with the family may be considered for employment assistance if the widow of the deceased employee gives her consent in writing.”
10.The aforesaid Board Proceedings is based on G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993. As per the scheme of compassionate appointment as provided in B.P.330, married daughter will not come under the zone of consideration.
11.But the scheme of compassionate appointment as provided under G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993 was altered by issuing G.O.Ms.No.165, Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.08.2010 and G.O.Ms.No.96, Labour and Employment Department, dated 18.06.2012 as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
12.At this juncture, it is useful to trace the history relating to compassionate appointment and in fact I have traced the same in my order dated 09.07.2015 in W.P.No.20437 of 2015 [A.Vimala V. The Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department], wherein, I have quashed the G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 18.06.2012, insofar as fixing the cut off date for providing compassionate appointment to the married daughter as 29.11.2001. It is useful to extract the following paragraphs in the said order dated 09.07.2015 which read as follow :
?9. I have considered the entire issue including the validity of G.O.Ms.No.165, Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.08.2010 in detail in my order dated 13.04.2015 in W.P.No.10565 of 2015 (R.GOVINDAMMAL VS. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE AND NUTRITIOUS MEAL PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AND OTHERS) and 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 her father/mother, who was a Government servant, is violative of the provisions of the Constitution. In that order, I have also considered the judgments of this Court reported in G.GIRIJA VS. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PANCHAYATS), KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT [2008 (5) CTC 686] and KRISHNAVENI VS. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KADAMPARAI ELECTRICITY GENERATION BLOCK, COIMBATORE DISTRICT [2013 (8) MLJ 684], which are referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. In Govindammal’s case (cited supra), I traced the scheme of compassionate appointment in government service with regard to the married daughters. In the original scheme providing compassionate appointment in G.O.Ms.No.560 Labour and Employment Department, dated 03.08.1977, there is a total deprivation for married daughters to seek compassionate appointment. While married sons are eligible to make compassionate appointment, married daughters are ineligible to make application for compassionate appointment.
11. Later, the Government made certain improvements to G.O.Ms.No.560 by issuing G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993 after 16 years of the issuance of the first Government Order viz., G.O.Ms.No.560.
12. G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993 provided compassionate appointment to married daughters of government servant, if the daughter was abandoned by her husband or a divorcee or a widow i.e., G.O.Ms.No.155 included certain categories of married daughters to claim compassionate appointment. However, discriminatory treatment was not removed in total, that is, while marriage is not a pre-condition prescribed in the matter of providing compassionate appointment to sons of a deceased government servant, the same was placed as a condition in the case of daughters.
13. Thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.165, Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.08.2010 was issued making further improvements in the Scheme. As per G.O.Ms.No.165, the married daughter could also claim compassionate appointment, if she was unmarried at the time of making application. In the said Government Order, it is stated that taking into account the decisions of this Court, such relaxation was granted in providing compassionate appointment to the married daughters, who got married subsequent to the death of the Government Servant and more particularly after making application for compassionate appointment, i.e, G.O.Ms.No.165 also did not render full justice to women. Still, discriminatory treatment was meted out to women. While no such condition is prescribed in the case of a son, that the son shall be unmarried at the time of making application after the death of the deceased government servant, a condition is prescribed in the case of daughter that she shall be unmarried at the time of making application for compassionate appointment.
14. Now a further improvement is made in the scheme providing compassionate appointment by issuing G.O.Ms.No.96, Labour and Employment Department, dated 18.06.2012. It is useful to extract the entire Government Order, namely, G.O.Ms.No.96:-“
1. அரசாணை (நிலை) எண்,212.
பணியாளர் மற்றும் நிர்வாகச் சீர்திருத்தத் துறை.
நாள்,29,11,2001,
2, அரசு கடிதம் எண்,6777,,0ப்பி,,2001-1.
பணியாளர் மற்றும் நிர்வாகச் சீர்திருத்தத் துறை.
நாள்,19,12,2001,
3,அரசாணை (நிலை) எண்,16
பணியாளர் மற்றும் நிர்வாகச் சீர்திருத்தத் துறை.
நாள்,21,02,2006,
4,அரசாணை (நிலை) எண்,165
தொழிலாளர் மற்றும் வேலைவாய்ப்புத்துறை.
நாள்,3,008,201,0
ஆணை
மேலே நான்கில் படிக்கப்பட்ட அரசாணையில். பணியிடை மரணமடைந்த அரசு ஊழியரின் நெருங்கிய உறவினர்கள் (நேரடி வாரிசுகள்) என்று குறிப்பிடப்பட்டுள்ள நபர்களுள் திருமணமாகாத மகள் என்ற நிலையில். பணிநியமனம் கோரி விண்ணப்பம் அளித்து. பணி நியமனம் வழங்கப்படுவதற்கு முன்பே திருமணம் செய்து கொண்டவர்கள். கருணை அடிப்படையிலான பணி நியமனத்திற்கு இதர தகுதிகளை நிறைவு செய்யும் பட்சத்தில் அவர்களுக்கும் பணி நியமனம் வழங்கிட கீழ்கண்ட நிபந்தனைகளுக்குட்பட்டு ஆணைகள் வெளியிடப்பட்டுள்ளன,
1) திருமணமாகாத நிலையில் உள்ள பெண்களுக்கு. அக்குடும்பத்தில் உள்ள பிற வாரிசுதாரர்கள் அளித்த மறுப்பின்மைச் சான்றிதழ் திருமணமான பின். அப்பெண்ணுக்கு பணி அளிக்கப்படும்போது மீண்டும் மற்ற வாரிசுதாரர்களால் மறுப்பின்மைச் சான்றிதழஞ் வழங்கப்பட வேண்டும், http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
2) திருமணம் செய்து கொண்ட பின்னர் பணி வாய்ப்பு பெறும் தனியர். தனது பெற்றோரின் குடும்பத்திற்கு உதவிபுரியும் வகையில் உறுதி ஆவணம் வழங்கப்பட வேண்டும்,
3)கருணை அடிப்படையில் பணிவாய்ப்பு கோரியுள்ள திருமணமாகாத பெண்ணைத் திருமணம் செய்து கொள்ளவிருக்கும் நபர். எதிர் காலத்தில் அவரால் அவரது பெற்றோருக்குச் செய்யும் உதவிக்கு மறுப்பு ஏதும் ஏற்படுத்த மாட்டேன் என்று உறுதிமொழயை அளிக்க வேண்டும், மேற்படி அரசாணை. அது வெளியிடப்பட்ட நாளிலிருந்து நடைமுறைப்படுத்தப்பட்டது, 2, மேலே ஒன்றில் படிக்கப்பட்ட அரசாணை மு்லம் நேரடி பணிநியமன தடையாணை பிறப்பித்த நாளான. அதாவது 29,11,2001-க்கு முன்னர் கருணை அடிப்படையிலான பணி நியமனம் கோரி விண்ணப்பம் அளித்து. 29,11,2001-க்கு பின்னர் திருமணம் செய்துகொண்ட பெண் வாரிசுதாரர்களுக்கு அவர்கள் இதர தகுதிகளை நிறைவு செய்யும் பட்சத்தில். கருணை அடிப்படையில் பணி நியமனம் வழங்கலாமா என்பது குறித்து தெளிவுரைகள் வழங்குமாறு வணிகவாp ஆணையர் அரசிடம் கோரியிருந்தார், 3, இந்நேர்வினை கவனமாக ஆய்வு செய்த அரசு 29,11,2001-க்கு முன்னர் கருணை அடிப்படையிலான பணி நியமனம் கோரி விண்ணப்பம் அளித்து 29,11,2001-க்கு பின்னர் திருமணம் செய்துகொண்ட பெண் வாhpரிசுதாரர்களுக்கு அவர்கள் இதர தகுதிகளை நிறைவு செய்யும் பட்சத்தில். கருணை அடிப்படையில் பணி நியமனம் வழங்கலாம் என்று முடிவு செய்துள்ளது,
4.அதன்படி. 29,11,2001-க்கு பின்னர் திருமணம் செய்துகொண்ட பெண் வாhpசுதாரர்களுக்கு அவர்கள் இதர தகுதிகளை நிறைவு செய்யும் பட்சத்தில். கருணை அடிப்படையில் பணி நியமனம் வழங்கலாம் என்று அரசு ஆணையிடுகிறது, எனினும். 29,11,2001-ற்கு முன்னர் திருமணம் செய்துக் கொண்ட பெண் வாரிசுதாரர்களுக்கு இவ்வரசாணை பொருந்தாது என்றும் அரசு ஆணையிடுகிறது,
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.
17. In fact, the third respondent passed the impugned order without any application of mind and also in violation of G.O.Ms.No.96 dated 18.06.2012. The daughters, who got married after 29.11.2001, are entitled to seek compassionate appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.96. In the impugned order, the third respondent has mentioned the date of marriage of the petitioner as 01.05.2002. If that be so, the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment even as per G.O.Ms.No.96. In fact the date of marriage is erroneously mentioned in the impugned order as 01.05.2002, whereas, the date of marriage is 19.02.1999. Since the marriage of the petitioner took place on 19.02.1999, which is prior to the cut-off date of 29.11.2001 as fixed in the G.O.Ms.No.96, the impugned order declined to provide compassionate appointment, based on G.O.Ms.No.96.
18. Since I have quashed the fixation of 29.11.2001 as cut-off date for married daughters to claim compassionate appointment , the impugned order, dated 20.03.2013 is also set aside and a direction is issued to the third respondent to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the the date of receipt of a copy of this order.?
13.From the above said judgment, it is clear that this Court held in categorical terms that the Government cannot deny compassionate appointment to the daughter of the deceased Government servant on the ground of marriage and quashed the Government Orders denying compassionate appointments to the married daughters. It is relevant to note that the deceased employee had left behind his wife, his two daughters and mother and he had no male issues.
14.In fact, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, B.P.No.13, Administrative Branch dated 08.08.2011 is based on G.O.Ms.No.165, Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.08.2010. This G.O provides for compassionate appointment to married daughters also. However, the said G.O places a restriction that the daughter of the deceased employee should not have got married at the time when she is making application for compassionate appointment and the marriage thereafter could not be a bar to provide compassionate appointment. This portion was quashed by this Court and the same is dealt with in the judgment that is extracted above.
15.In view of the same and also taking into account the aforesaid judgment, I am of the view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner, without reference to marriage, if she is otherwise eligible. Such exercise shall be undertaken within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
To
1)The Chief Engineer (Personnel), TANGEDCO, 144, Anna salai, Chennai.
2)The Superintending Engineer, Virudhunagar Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Virudhunagar-626 001. .
*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
*******************************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************
my2centsworth 