G. Kaleeswari vs The District Collector

K.K. Sasidharan, J.—The application submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondent on the ground that married daughter is not eligible for making application for compassionate appointment.

The father of the petitioner Thiru. S. Gurusamy, while working as office Assistant in the Office of District Collector, Virudhunagar District died in harness leaving behind the petitioner, her mother and sister as the surviving legal heirs.

It is the case of the petitioner that even before the death of her father, she was given in marriage to her maternal uncle Balasubramaniam, who is a daily wager. The petitioner, immediately after the death of her father submitted an application for compassionate appointment. The application was returned with endorsement that petitioner being a married daughter, she is not entitled for compassionate appointment.

There is no dispute that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. The Government have earmarked certain percentage of posts for making compassionate appointments. Compassionate appointment is made for the purpose of enabling the family of the deceased employee to tied over the difficulties that has caused due to the sudden death of the sole bread winner of the family.

The respondent herein has no case that the petitioner is in affluent circumstances and as such she is not eligible for compassionate appointment. The fact that the petitioner was married cannot be a valid reason to deny her compassionate appointment. Therefore, I am of the view that the respondent was not correct in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration. The respondent is directed to consider the application on merits and as per law and dispose it of within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs.