Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
Mohanambal
Versus
The Director Land & Survey Department, Kancheepuram & Others
W.P.No.24964 of 2010 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2010
Decided On :Decided on : 03-12-2010
Compassionate Appointment - Rejection of Claim - Land and Survey Department - Uthiramerur - 1986 (2) LW 324, 2006 (9) SCC 195 - The court discussed the rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment, the financial status of the family, and cited relevant judgments to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought compassionate appointment after the death of her father, who was the sole breadwinner of the family. Her initial application was rejected due to her mother's lack of minimum qualification. Subsequent applications were rejected on the grounds of a ban order and the petitioner's marriage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's claim based on the timing of the application was unjustified, considering the financial status of the family. It cited relevant judgments to support its decision.
Issues: The main issue was whether the rejection of the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was justified based on the timing of the application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the financial status of the family and cited relevant judgments to support its decision to set aside the rejection and remit the matter back for reconsideration.
Final Decision: The court set aside the rejection and remitted the matter back to the Second Respondent for reconsideration in light of the Income Certificate produced, with a direction to pass revised orders within four weeks.
1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the Second Respondent dated 7.11.2008 rejecting the request of the Petitioner seeking compassionate appointment and for a direction to the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner on compassionate ground.
2. The case of the Petitioner is that Petitioner’s father Arjunan was employed as Surveyor at Uthiramerur in the Land and Survey Department and on 10.2.1986 he died in harness, leaving behind the Petitioner and her mother (wife of the deceased employee). According to the Petitioner, her father was the sole bread-winner of the family. The Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community and immediately after the death of Arjunan, Petitioner’s mother submitted an Application seeking compassionate appointment to her in the year 1986, which was rejected on the ground that she was not having minimum qualification of 8th standard.
3. On passing Plus Two (+2) examinations, Petitioner submitted an Application in the year 2001 along with all relevant certificates and at that time the Petitioner had completed 18 years of age and was not married. The said Application was kept pending for seven years due to the ban order issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.212, P & AR Department, dated 29.11.2001 and during pendency of the said Application, on 2.2.2004 Petitioner married one Ramesh, who is also not employed. The Second Respondent informed the Petitioner that her claim for appointment on compassionate ground was forwarded to the Government, the ban order issued by the Government in the year 2001, the same was not considered. On 21.2.2006 the Government lifted the ban order and on 20.6.2007 Petitioner submitted the relevant documents and also stated that she is the only eligible legal heir of the deceased employee (Arjunan), entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. However, the said request was rejected by the department on 24.8.2007 stating that the Petitioner is a married woman and therefore, she is not entitled to get appointment on compassionate grounds.
4. The above said order was challenged by the Petitioner in W.P.No.19581 of 2008. Placing reliance in the Division Bench decision reported in U. Arulmozhi v. The Director of School Education & others, 2006 (2) LW 324, the said W.P.No.19581 of 2008 was disposed of on 4.9.2008 by setting aside the said order and directing the Respondents to consider the request of the Petitioner without reference to her marriage, within four weeks. The said order having not been complied with, Petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.465 of 2010 and during the hearing of the Contempt Petition, noticing the order passed already, the Contempt Petition was closed granting liberty to the Petitioner to challenge the order in a separate Writ Petition. Pursuant to the above liberty, this Writ Petition is filed on the ground that the Respondents having not raised the present objection in the earlier order of rejection, which was passed solely on the ground that the Petitioner is a married woman and therefore, they are not justified in finding out a new ground to reject the claim of the Petitioner.
5. When the Writ Petition was posted for admission on 3.11.2010 the learned Government Advocate took notice on behalf of the Respondents.
6. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate and by consent of both parties the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
7. The point arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the Second Respondent is justified in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner, seeking compassionate appointment, on the ground that the Application was made beyond three years from the date of death of Petitioner’s father, when the request was earlier rejected only on the ground that the Petitioner got married during pendency of the Application.
8. The Petitioner’s mother immediately applied for compassionate appointment after the death of Petitioner’s father. The Secon
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
