Allowed

M.Balasubramanian, v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC8 Sept 2014WP/20430/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that rejection of a compassionate appointment claim based merely on a brother's employment was unsustainable. Emphasizing G.O.Ms.No.155, the Court ruled that proof of family support is mandatory for rejection. The impugned order was set aside, directing authorities to reconsider on merits within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejected compassionately set aside; petitioner directed to consider case on merits within four weeks.

M.Balasubramanian, Vs the Government of Tamil… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.09.2014 CORAM :

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶3

W.P.No.20430 of 2013
and M.P.No.3 of 2013
M.Balasubramanian .. Petitioner
vs.
1.The Govt. of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by its Secretary,
Educational Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Chengalpattu – 603 001. .. Respondents

¶4

Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records made in the impugned order of the third respondent herein in O.Mu.No.1932/A1/2013 dated 07.05.2013 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to provide any suitable post to the petitioner herein on compassionate ground in the light of the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour and Employment Department dated 16.07.1993 within time frame.

¶5

The petitioner's father died on 22.09.1997 in harness leaving behind his widow Jothi, daughter Navaneethan three sons namely Gomatheeswaran, Umamaheswaran and the petitioner.

¶6

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶7

The petitioner was a graduate when his father died and therefore submitted an application on 30.03.1999 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds and the 3^rd respondent duly forwarded the application to the 2^nd respondent on 29.08.2000. The 2^nd respondent called for further clarification on 05.06.2002 and the petitioner also complied with those requirements. Thereafter, on 01.10.2012, 3^rd respondent sought for some more details and that was also complied with by the petitioner. While so, the impugned order was passed by the 3^rd respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the younger brother of the petitioner has got appointment as secondary grade teacher and the family is not in indigent circumstances and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to seek appointment on compassionate ground relying upon the G.O.(Ms) No.998 Labour and Employment Department, dated 02.05.1981. The said order is challenged in this writ petition.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the 3^rd respondent, without considering G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993 had rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that the petitioner's younger brother got employment, without considering the fact that the petitioner's brother was not supporting the family.

¶9

The learned Additional Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.998 Labour and Employment Department, dated 02.05.1981, if any one of the dependents in the family is employed, the other members are not entitled to seek employment on compassionate ground and in this case, the petitioner's younger brother is employed as secondary grade teacher and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground.

¶10

I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Additional Govt. Pleader. It is seen from G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour & Employment dated 16.07.1993, that if a member of the family is already in employment and supports the family, then it has to be ascertained whether he is regularly employed and he is actually supporting the family. It is further stated that if that person was employed even before the death of the Government servant and was living separately without extending any help to the family, then the case of other eligible dependents request can be considered.

¶11

In this case, the petitioner's request was rejected on the ground that his younger brother Gomatheeswaran was employed as a secondary grade teacher. It is not stated in the order whether the said Gomatheeswaran was supporting the family of the petitioner or the family of his deceased father. As per G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993 referred to above, only when any one of the legal heirs is an earning member and supporting the family, the other members are not eligible for compassionate appointment. In this

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

case, in the impugned order, it has not been stated that the petitioner's brother was supporting the family. Therefore, even assuming that the petitioner's brother was employed, that cannot be a ground to reject the case of the petitioner, in the absence of any proof that the petitioner's brother was supporting the petitioner's family.

¶14

Admittedly, the application for compassionate appointment was made by the petitioner within time and the same was forwarded and details were called for from the petitioner from the year 1997 and the same cannot be rejected on the ground that one of the petitioner's brother was employed subsequently, without stating that such person was supporting the family.

¶15

In view of the above said circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner on merits, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

With the above direction, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(J) Dated: 09.10.2014 //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rgr To 1.The Secretary,Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Educational Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶17

2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶18

3.The District Educational Officer, Chengalpattu – 603 001.

¶19

+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 42501 +1cc to Mr.L.Mahendran, Advocate Sr 42380 LRS(CO) km/10.10 W.P.No.20430 of 2013

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Balasubramanian, v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Balasubramanian, v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Perumal Vs The Director of Town Panchayat

M. Rakkiannan Vs Tamilnadu State Transport

T.Ramaparamasivar, Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

T.Manikandan, Vs Director of School Education

M.Raghavendra Rao Vs The Director of Agriculture

M.Raja Ashok Kumar, Vs Director of School Education