Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 3592
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
G. Pattabiraman
Versus
The Secretary to Government Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai & Others
W.P. No. 14872 of 2009 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2009
Decided On :Decided On : 20-08-2010
For the Petitioner:C. Prakasam, Advocate.
For the Respondents: V. Srikanth, Additional Government Pleader.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the indigent circumstances of the deceased Government employee's family before denying compassionate appointment to another legal heir.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Family Support - The court quashed the impugned order and directed the first respondent to pass a fresh order in terms of G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993 after getting a report from his subordinate officials on the indigent circumstances of the family of the deceased Government employee.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought compassionate appointment after the death of his father, but the claim was rejected based on the reasoning that the employed legal heir's name was found in the family's Ration Card.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was contrary to G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993, and directed the first respondent to reconsider the appointment based on a report on the family's indigent circumstances.
Issues: The issue revolved around the denial of compassionate appointment based on the presence of the employed legal heir's name in the family's Ration Card.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere presence of the employed legal heir's name in the Ration Card does not establish support for the family, and directed the first respondent to conduct an inquiry into the family's circumstances before making a decision.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed, and the first respondent was directed to pass a fresh order based on the G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993, within 12 weeks.
1. The petitioners father was working as Lab Technician in the third respondent Hospital. On 19.06.1996, his father expired during his service. The petitioner approached the respondents on 05.08.1997 for compassionate appointment. The petitioner possessed B.Sc., B.Ed., and he has also passed typewriting in lower and higher grade both in Tamil and English and lower in shorthand. Even, prior to the death of his father, his brother and sister got married and were living separately. Neither the brother nor the sister supported the petitioner and his mother.
2. While so, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 27.09.2007 rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the aforesaid order dated 27.09.2007 of the first respondent and for a direction to the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground in the respondents Department.
4. Notice of motion was ordered on 30.07.2009.
5. Heard Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Srikanth, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
6. The reason given by the first respondent in the impugned order is that when the petitioner claimed for compassionate appointment, his brother got married in the year 1992, long before the death of his father and he was living separately, but his name and the name of his sister were removed from the Ration Card only on 09.04.1997 and 10.04.1997, respectively. In similar circumstances appointment was given to some other persons and the Government refused to regularise their service and they were terminated from service. The said persons were reinstated pursuant to an order of the Court. The matter is now pending before the Court. If the request of the petitioner is accepted, the said case could go against the respondent.
7. The learned Additional Government Pleader made his submissions based on instructions.
8. As per G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993, the employment of legal heirs cannot be a bar for providing compassionate appointment to another legal heir, if the persons in employment are not supporting the family of the deceased Government servant. Therefore, as per the said G.O.Ms.No.155, the first respondent has to see, whether the employed legal heir supports the family or not. The first respondent cannot come to the conclusion that the employed legal-heir supports the family, since his name is found in the Ration Card of the family. The first respondent should have directed his subordinate officials to conduct an enquiry and to submit a report, as to the indigent circumstances of the family of the deceased Government employee. Based on the said report, the first respondent should come to one conclusion or other.
9. On the other hand, the mere fact that the name of the brother of the petitioner who was employed in Central Government Service is found in the Ration Card, could not be the ground to deny compassionate appointment. Even according to the first respondent, the brother of the petitioner got married in the year 1992, while the father of the petitioner died in 1996 and lived separately.
10. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioners brother was living separately even during the life time of his father. As far as the sister of the petitioner was concerned, it is stated that she was married, even before the death of the father. It is not the case of the first respondent that the petitioners sister was supporting the family even after of her marriage. Just because, her name was found in the Ration Card, even after marriage, that could not be cited as a reason to deny the employment on the ground that she supports the family. The presence of the name in the Ration Card, cannot establish that the persons mentioned in the Ration Card support the family.
11. Hence, the impugned order is contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.
