Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 19046
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.VELMURUGAN
The District Collector – Appellant
Versus
P Pandiarajan – Respondent
The court established that male legal heirs can be eligible for compassionate appointment if no suitable female heirs seek such positions, considering the dependency of the applicant.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Writ Appeal - G.O.Ms.No.48, G.O.Ms.No.215, G.O.Ms.No.198 - The court upheld that male legal heirs can be considered for compassionate appointments under specific conditions, particularly when female heirs do not claim such appointments, emphasizing the dependency of the applicant on the deceased.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent applied for compassionate appointment following the death of his mother, who was a government employee. His application was initially ignored, leading to legal proceedings. Despite government orders favoring female heirs, the court considered the respondent's dependency and the lack of objection from his sisters.
Finding of the Court:
The court ruled in favor of the respondent, asserting that despite governmental policies prioritizing female heirs, there was no legal bar against granting compassionate appointments to male heirs under the given circumstances, particularly given the dependency and no objection from female siblings.
Issues: Whether the male legal heir could be considered for compassionate appointment despite existing governmental orders favoring female heirs.
Ratio Decidendi: The legal principle established was that compassionate appointments should prioritize dependency and familial circumstances over rigid adherence to gender-based eligibility criteria when suitable female heirs are not pursuing such appointments.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN.,J)
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.667 of 2024, dated 15.3.2024.
2.The respondent’s mother was working as Assistant Cook in Tamil Nadu Government Noon Meal Scheme at K.Perumalpatti Panchayat Union Primary School, T.Kallupatti Panchayat Union, Madurai District..While in service, she died on 17.4.2018 survived by the respondent and two of his sisters. The Petitioner/respondent herein made an application, dated 25.6.2018 before the first appellant for compassionate appointment on the ground of sudden death of his mother. Since the Writ Petitioner’s application was not considered by the appellants, he filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.15559 of 2023 before this Court. This Court also directed the respondents therein to consider the representation of the Petitioner, dated 25.6.2018 and pass appropriate orders by order, dated 24.8.2023. Based on the said order, the Writ Petitioner sent a detailed representation along with a copy of the order of this Court. Since the appellants have not taken any steps to consider his representation based on the order of this Court,he issued a contempt notice. Thereafter, the first respondent passed a rejection order on 22.12.2023. Challenging the same, the respondent filed a writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.667 of 2024, The Writ Court after considering the matter, allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the rejection order passed by the first appellant, dated 22.12.2023 and directed the appellants to provide compassionate appointment to the respondent herein within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Challenging the same, the appellants have filed the present Writ Appeal before this Court.
3.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as per G.O.Ms215, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meals Programme Department, dated 8.9.1998, only female members are eligible to be appointed in the post of Organizers and cooks and that in G.O.Ms.No.198, dated 25.10.2007, only when no female members are available in the family of the deceased Noon Meal staff, the male member can be considered and in such a case, he could be appointed only as a cook in Puratchithalaivar Dr.MGR Nutririous Meal Programme as per G.O.Ms.No.215, Social Welfare and Noon Meal Programme, dated 8.9.1998. The said power has been given only to the District Colletors themselves namely, the first appellant herein. In this case, female legal heirs of the deceased worker is available. Therefore, the respondent is only a male member and he could not be recommended and even as per G.O.Ms.No.78, Social Welfare and Noon Meal Programme Department,dated 25.10.2026 followed it with a clarification of the Government in Govt.Letter No.13658/NMP 4-2/2016-1, dated 17.2.2017 by stating that if the female heirs of the deceased worker is available, the male member should not be recommended and the same was communicated to all the District Collectors and subordinates by the Director of Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department, Chennai vide letter No.12751/E3-4/2016, dated 17.3.2017.
4.Further he would submit that the Government of Tamil Nadu has taken a policy decision and issued Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.48,Social Welfare and Women Empowerment(NM 4.2) Department, dated 18.8.2021 only female heirs of the deceased workers of Noon Meal Programme Scheme could be given appointment on compassionate grounds basing on their eligibility criteria and that no male legal heirs are eligible to be given appointment on compassionate grounds. In this case, the deceased worker was having three legal heirs among them, 2 of them are female legal heirs and one is the respondent, a male legal heir.. When the female heirs are available and as per various Government Orders and Government schemes and also various circulars issued in this regard by the Department to the District Collectors that the female members should be given preference,
