Mariyammal vs The District Collector

K.B.K. Vasuki, J.—The petitioner herein is the wife of one M. Gurusamy, who was employed as Village Assistant at Kaluneerkulam Village, Alankulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District and her husband died on 29.09.1999, while he was in service, leaving behind the petitioner and his two daughters by name Mahalakshmi and Anandha Sakthi and his son Periya Raja as his legal heirs. On the date of the death, the deceased employee''s children were minors and the application for compassionate appointment was submitted by the petitioner on 09.10.2000 to the first respondent seeking appointment for her eldest daughter Muthulakshmi, who was studying in 9th standard. The petitioner also submitted reminders on 27.07.2009. Finally the same was decided and the impugned order came to be passed on 31.03.2010, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment for her elder daughter, on the ground that the married daughter of the deceased employee is not entitled to compassionate appointment. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

It is not in dispute that in the meanwhile, both the daughters were married and the eldest daughter gave birth to two children and she was deserted by her husband and she has been earning by doing a job and the entire family consisting of mother, younger daughter and brother have been living under the care and custody of the elder daughter.

The correctness and validity of the ground on which the claim negatived was directly dealt with by the learned Brother Judges of this Court in the following judgment in W.P. (MD) No. 5183 of 2013 (M. Sudha Vs. the District Collector, Thanjavur); G. Girija Vs. Assistant Director (Panchayat), Kancheepuram and others, and Krishnaveni Vs. The Superintending Engineer, .

For better understanding, the relevant paragraph No. 5 of the order made in W.P. (MD) No. 5183 of 2013 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 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 in G. Girija Vs. Assistant Director (Panchayat), Kancheepuram and others, 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 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 all the cases cited above, the married daughter was held to be entitled to seek compassionate appointment provided she is otherwise eligible for appointment. In all the cases, similar impugned orders were set aside with further direction issued to the respondents therein to consider the case of the married daughters for compassionate appointment.

Applying the same view, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment to her elder daughter viz., Muthulakshmi, on merits, if the married daughter is otherwise eligible for compassionate appointment. The whole exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.