Title: V. Priyadharsan. Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu.
Decided On: September 19, 2023.
W.P.No.1563 of 2020.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Battu Devanand.
Facts:
The petitioner is the only son of his mother Late G.Usha Rani, who worked as Auxiliary Nursing Midwife in Government Primary Health Centre, Kottarakudi, who died in harness on 14.05.2012. On the date of death of his mother, the petitioner was only 14 years of old. The father of the petitioner was working as Driver. But he is unable to support the petitioner, since he has another wife and separate family. At the time of death of his mother, he was studying only 9th Standard and after his mother’s death, he was put in dark distress, as he depended on his mother emotionally and financially. After completion of +1, he applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 06.04.2015. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.10.2019 as a reminder by enclosing all relevant documents to all the respondents. But the respondents failed to consider the claim of the petitioner. Against the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s claim for terminal benefits, family pension and compassionate appointment, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.31203 of 2019. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 06.11.2019 to consider the representations dated 06.04.2015 and 14.10.2019 of the petitioner. In pursuance to the same, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned letter dated 24.12.2019 stating that the request of the petitioner is rejected on the ground that the father of the petitioner is working as Driver in Government. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
Legal Analysis and Decision:
The petitioner contends that he is emotionally and financially depended on her mother, as his father is having separate family, cannot be brushed away in the absence of any rebuttal evidence on behalf of the respondents. However, as and when the father of the petitioner also issued No Objection Certificate to grant terminal benefits, pension and for appointment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner, for the death of the petitioner’s mother, as he is the only legal heir of her, the reasons stated in the order impugned in the writ petition to reject the claim of the petitioner are irrational, illegal and unjust. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family tied over the sudden crisis and to relieve the family of the deceased from financial destitution and to help it to get over the hard situation. In the present case, after sudden death of his mother, the petitioner has no support to survive at the age of 14 years. However, by doing some coolie works, he studied up to +1 and submitted application on 06.04.2015 within the time permitted to submit application seeking compassionate appointment. The respondents failed to consider the fact that the father of the petitioner is having another wife and separate family and the petitioner is the son of the second wife of his father. Without considering all these factual aspects, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned letter rejecting the claim of the petitioner by order dated 24.12.2019, which is unjust and irrational. The respondents ought to have kept in mind that the scheme of compassionate ground appointment was introduced by the Government as a welfare measure to help the legal heirs of the deceased Government servants appreciating the services rendered by them for the Government.
The court allowed the petition by issuing the following directions:
- The impugned letter dated 24.12.2019 of the 3rd respondent is hereby set aside.
- The respondents are directed to release the terminal benefits for the death of the mother of the petitioner to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
- The respondents are further directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in any suitable post within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Conclusion:
The Court held that in the present case, the respondents failed to consider the case of the petitioner in proper perspective. As such, the letter dated 24.12.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent, which is impugned in this writ petition, is unsustainable and accordingly, it was set aside and directed the respondents to consider appointment of petitioner in any suitable post.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.
