Krishnaveni vs The Superintending Engineer

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—With the consent of both parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal, as the matter is squarely

covered by a decision of this Court. Heard both sides.

The petitioner''s husband was working as Serang Grade II in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and he died on 19.8.2012 while he was in

service. He left behind the petitioner and her two daughters, namely Revathi and Jayashree as legal heirs. He has no son. Both daughters were

married when he died.

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment for her second daughter Jayashree on 17.12.2012 along with necessary Certificates, as

the petitioner is an illiterate and she is also 41 years. Since her second daughter has assured her that she would take care of the petitioner after the

death of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner requested for compassionate appointment to her second daughter.

But, her request was rejected by the impugned order dated 25.2.2013 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.

In similar circumstances, the matter was considered by me in W.P. (MD) No. 5183 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 otherwise eligible for appointment. In fact, in the said judgment, I followed the earlier

judgment of mine in W.P. (MD) No. 8686 of 2011. The relevant paragraph 5 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder:

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter is squarely covered by a decision dated 2.7.2012 rendered by me in

W.P. (MD) No. 8686 of 2011. Paragraph 9 of the judgment 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 a 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 carte 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 (Panchayats) and others, applies to the facts of this case. In the said case, the Government servant

died on 26.2.1991. The daughter got married on 10.9.2006. She gave an application for compassionate appointment on 2.6.1997. This court

quashed the order declining to give compassionate appointment holding that there cannot be any discrimination between 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 the circumstances, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for

compassionate appointment to her second daughter Jayashree on merits and in accordance with law and if the marriage daughter is otherwise

eligible, provide her compassionate appointment, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition

is disposed of. No costs.