Marriage does not disqualify a person from seeking employment assistance on compassionate grounds, and equal duty is placed on both sons and daughters to take care of parents under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

Being aggrieved by the order, dated 09.06.2014, made in W.P.(MD)No.9056 of 2014, setting aside the order, dated 26.04.2014, of the District Collector, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil, the 3rd appellant herein, and the consequential direction issued to him to appoint the respondent, as Junior Assistant, in the Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram at Thuckalay, Kanaykumari District, the 4th appellant herein, the present writ appeal has been filed.

2. Facts of the case, as deduced from the material on record and the order impugned, are that the respondent's father, working as a Junior Revenue Assistant in the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Thuckalay, Kanniyakumari District, died in harness on 14.09.2012. During the life time of the bread-winner, respondent's marriage was solemnized on 06.06.2011. As her husband was not employed, they were struggling to meet both ends and hence, the respondent made an application on 07.09.2013 to the appellants, for employment assistance, on compassionate grounds. Her application was not considered. Hence, she was constrained to file a writ petition in W.P. (MD)No.7244 of 2014, wherein a direction was given by this Court, vide order dated 25.04.2014, to consider the said representation and pass appropriate orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

3. Thereafter, vide proceedings No.O.Mu.Aa.1/11464/2014, dated 26.04.2014, the District Collector, Kanniyakumari District, rejected the request of the respondent on the ground that even prior to the death of the Government Servant, i.e.on 14.09.2012, she was married and hence her candidature could not be considered for employment assistance, on compassionate grounds. According to the District Collector, she was ineligible under the Scheme. When the said order was put to challenge, after considering the earlier decisions of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.18660 of 2013, dated 10.07.2013, W.P.(MD)No.22171 of 2013, dated 13.08.2013, the writ court, and by observing that the issue as to whether a married daughter is entitled for employment assistance on compassionate grounds is no longer res integra and on the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the writ petition.

4. Perusal of the impugned order made in W.P.(MD)No.9056 of 2014, dated 09.06.2014, also shows that even at the time of admission of the writ petition, the learned Additional Government Pleader, who appeared for the appellants before the writ court, had fairly conceded to the above said position. Thus, while setting aside the order, dated 26.04.2014, of the District Collector, Kanniyakumari District, the Writ Court has directed the District Collector to consider the case of the respondent for employment Assistance, on compassionate grounds, without reference to her marriage, if she is otherwise eligible for appointment to the post, to which request has been made. The Writ Court has further directed that the said exercise shall be done by the District Collector, Kanniyakumari District, appellant No.3, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order made in the writ petition. Operative portion of the order made in W.P.(MD)No.18660 of 2013, dated 10.07.2013, considered by the writ court is reproduced hereunder.

“5. But, her request was rejected by the impugned order dated 25.02.2013 by the respondent. The only reason given in the impugned order is that her daughter Jayashree was married at the time of death of the husband of the petitioner and therefore she was not eligible to grant compassionate appointment.

6. In similar circumstances, the matter was considered by me in W.P.(MD)No.51 83 of 2013 (M.Sudha vs. the District Collector, Thanjavur District), and I set aside the similar impugned order and issued direction to the respondent therein to consider the case of the petitioner therein for compassionate appointment, if the petitioner therein was other