A. Chitra vs The District Collector

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The claim made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected by the impugned order dated

13.07.2012 on the ground that she is a married daughter of the deceased employee. She married in 2002 and her husband is an agricultural coolie.

Her father died on 09.10.2009. After his death, the widow mother is living with the petitioner. The mother of the petitioner is aged 52 years. The

petitioner is taking care of her mother. When she made an application dated 16.11.2009 for compassionate appointment, the same was rejected

by the impugned order dated 13.07.2012 on the ground that she is the married daughter. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

the matter is squarely covered by an order of this Court dated 03.04.2013 made in W.P. (MD) No. 5183 of 2013.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the Government Advocate.

The very purpose of the appointment is to support the dependants of the deceased employee. In this case, it is stated by the petitioner that her

widow mother is taken care of by the petitioner after the death of her father. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner,

I had an occasion to consider a similar matter in the order dated 02.07.2012 in W.P. (MD) No. 8686 of 2011. Paragraph No. 9 of the said order

is extracted hereunder:

As stated above, if marriage is not a bar in the case of son, the same yardstick shall be applied in the case of daughter also. At this juncture, it is

relevant to take note of the statute, namely, the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which places equal duty on

both the son and daughter to take care of the parents at the old age. Therefore, in the case of death of the parents, there cannot be any unequal

treatment among the children based on sex. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the judgment of this Court

reported in G. Girija Vs. Assistant Director (Panchayat), Kancheepuram and others, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District) applies to the facts

of this case. In the said case, the Government servant died on 26.02.1991. The daughter got married on 10.09.2006. She gave an application for

compassionate appointment on 02.06.1997. Her application was rejected on the ground that she was married when she gave an application for

compassionate appointment. This Court quashed the order declining to give compassionate appointment holding that there cannot be any

discrimination between the sons and daughters in the case of giving compassionate appointment. The said judgment squarely applies to the facts of

this case. Therefore, I have no hesitation to quash the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and a direction is issued to the

respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment without reference to the marriage of the petitioner and to pass

appropriate orders in the light of this judgment within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

In view of the above said judgment, I am inclined to quash the impugned order and accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the writ

petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.