Allowed

Pavadai, v. The District Collector

Madras HC22 Mar 2022WP/25690/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a poor agricultural labourer, challenged the rejection of his application for financial assistance under the Sivagami Ammaiyaar Memorial Girl Child Protection Scheme. The court held that the scheme aims to protect female children and education, and rejection based on the presence of a third male child was a technical ground. The order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; respondent directed to disburse financial assistance to petitioner within six weeks.

Pavadai, Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 22.03.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P.NO.25690 OF 2017 AND W.M.P.NO.27107 OF 2017

Pavadai

... Petitioner

.Vs.

The District Collector, Villupuram District.

¶10

The District Welfare Officer, Villupuram.

¶11

The Special Tahsildar, Sankarapuram, Villupuram District - 605 801. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER:-

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order in Na.Ka.No.258/A2/2016 dated 13/04/2017 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to provide financial assistance in the name of Sivagami Ammaiyaar Memorial Girl Child Protection Scheme for poor girls.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Pavendhan

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravikumar Special Government Pleader

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 2^nd respondent/District Welfare Officer, Villupuram, rejecting the petitioner's request for granting

¶18

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

¶19

financial assistance under the "Sivagami Ammaiyaar Memorial Girl Child Protection Scheme".

¶20

According to the petitioner, he is a poor agricultural

¶21

labour. He was working as a mason on daily wages and he has 3 children, 2 female child and one male child. The first son was born on 10.10.2009 and the second girl was born on 12.06.2011 and third female child was born on 07.07.2017. The first child was a physically challenged child. The petitioner is struggling to meet out the expenses from the meagre income derived from his occupation. In the said circumstances, the petitioner applied to the respondents for financial assistance under the above said scheme. Since the petitioner has two female child, his family is entitled to get Rs.25,000/- per annum under the said Scheme. However, the petitioner's application has been rejected on the ground that the scheme is applicable only to those persons, who are having only two female child. Since the petitioner is having 3 children, he is not able to get the benefit under the scheme. Now, challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶22

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on records carefully.

¶23

In the year 2001, the Government introduced a scheme, called Sivagami Ammaiyaar Memorial Girl Child Protection Scheme for poor girls for the purpose of improving the women education and to prevent eradicate female infanticide, thereby providing some financial assistance to the family, who are having two female child. Under the original scheme, any family, having only one girl child, entitled to a sum of Rs.22,200/-. Subsequently, the financial sanction has been enhanced by the Government, vide order in G.O.Ms.No.67, Social Welfare and Noon Meal Department dated 14.09.2011, by which, family having two female child is entitled for Rs.25,000/-. Under the scheme, a family having only one female child, child must have been born after 01.08.2011 and in family, where there are two female child, the second female child must have been born after 01.08.2011. Now, according to the petitioner, he is having two female child and the first female child born on 12.06.2011 and the second female child born on 07.07.2017, i.e., after the date fixed in the said Government Order. Hence, he is entitled to get the benefit under the scheme. But, his request has been rejected simply on the ground that apart from two female child, the petitioner is having one male child and hence, he is not entitled to get benefit under the said scheme.

¶24

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

¶25

However, a careful reading of the above said Government Order, it could be seen that the scheme has been brought only in order to improve the female child education and eradicate the female infanticide and promote the welfare of the female child. The said Government Order only mentions that the family having two female child is entitled to get the benefit and there is no prohibition that the family should not have more than two female children to get the benefit. Hence, the respondent has misread the said Government Order and thereby, rejected the benefit of financial assistance to the petitioner. That apart, it is stated that now, the male child, who was a physically challenged, also died pending writ petition and hence, now the petitioner's family is having only two female children.

¶26

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the scheme is only beneficial scheme to give protection to the female child and improve their education and provide the livelihood to them, the financial assistance cannot be denied on technical grounds. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent.

¶27

Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent is set aside and the 2^nd respondent is directed to disburse the amount payable to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶31

//True Copy//

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

mrp

¶34

¶35

The District Collector, Villupuram District.

¶36

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

¶37

The District Welfare Officer, Villupuram.

¶38

The Special Tahsildar, Sankarapuram,

¶39

Villupuram District - 605 801.

¶40

+1cc to Mr.G.Pavendhan, Advocate, S.R.No.19222 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.19879

¶41

W.P.NO.25690 OF 2017

¶42

RK(CO) PBS/20/05/2022

¶43

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

Pavadai, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavadai, v. The District Collector

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

Tirupur School for The Deaf Vs The State Commissioner for Welfare of the Differently Abled (Fac)

M.Karpagam Vs The Commissioner

G.Chidambaram Vs The Managing Director

S.N.K.Starch Industries Vs Food Safety & Standards

Dr.T.E.Tiruvengadam, Vs The Repatriates Co-op Finance

Ms.P.Rajalakshmi, Vs The Chairman