S..Girish Kumar Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

That the appellant viz., Girish Kumar was the writ petitioner, whose father one Subramani was working as a Forest Guard died in harness on 16.12.2014. Therefore, seeking compassionate appointment, the appellant / petitioner made an application in time which was rejected through the order dated 19.03.2018 passed by the third respondent. Challenging the same, the said writ petition has been filed.

¶24

The writ Court having considered the point that, if any member of the deceased employee's family has already been working in any Government or Private Organisation on permanent basis and he or she supports the family of the deceased, then no compassionate appointment need to be given to any other family members of the deceased employee. This mainly influenced the mind of the Court, where the writ Court has rejected the writ petition through the impugned order.

¶25

2/10

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.A.No.833 of 2023

¶28

Assailing the said order, the present appeal has been directed at the instance of the appellant / job seeker.

¶29

Heard Ms.T.Dharani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶30

We have perused the order impugned dated 19.03.2018 passed by the

¶31

third respondent which was impugned before the writ Court, where the reason stated by the respondents is that, as per G.O.(Ms)No.40, Labour and Employment Department dated 05.01.1990, the guidelines have been given, under which, if already any person working in any Government or other Organisation on permanent basis, then the request of the compassionate appointment sought for by any other legal heirs of the deceased employee need not be considered and any such compassionate appointment need not be given. That was only the reason cited in the order dated 19.03.2018.

¶32

However the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has brought

¶33

to our notice that subsequent to G.O.(MS)No.40, Labour and Employment

¶34

3/10

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.A.No.833 of 2023

¶37

Department dated 05.01.1990, G.O.(Ms)No.155, Labour and Employment Department was issued on 16.07.1993, where inter alia the following has been stated:

¶38

"3. In regard to the second condition mentioned in para 1 above, it is considered that if a member of the family is already on employment and supports the family then the restriction may be applied. When a dependent of the family is employed, the factors to be ascertained are, whether he is regularly employed and is actually supporting the family. 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 dependants will be considered."

¶39

Relying heavily on this paragraph of G.O.(Ms)No.155, the learned

¶40

counsel would contend that, if any 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 dependants will be considered.

¶41

In this context, it is further brought to our notice that, on 19.02.2016,

¶42

the Tahsildar concerned has given a certification stating that the family of the deceased employee is in indigent circumstances. The relevant portion of the certification issued by the Tahsildar reads thus:

¶43

4/10

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.A.No.833 of 2023

¶46

"3/ ,we;j muR CHpauhd fhyk;brd;w muR CHpauhd Rg;gpukzp j-bg/Kdprhkp vd;gthpd; FLk;gj;jpy; fhyk;brd;w Rg;gpukzp vd;gthpd; K:j;j kfs; bry;tp/rhpjh vd;gth; CdKw;wth; nfhl;lhtpy; jkpH;ehL muR kpd;thhpaj;jpy; Technical Assistant Mf gzpg[hpe;J tUfpwhh;/ ,th; gzp fpilj;j gpwF FLk;gj;Jld; ,y;yhky; jdpahf trpj;J tUfpwhh;/ ,th; CdKw;nwhh; vd;gjpy; mtUila Cjpak; mthpd; kUj;Jt brytpw;F gad;gLj;jp bfhs;fpwhh;/ FLk;gj;jpid ftdpf;fkhy;

¶47

cs;sdh;/ nkYk; muR foj vz;/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Memorandum No.105302-R3(2)1564/94-1 Admin Branch Date 14.11.1994 Adoption of Govt Orders d; go muR gzpapy; cs;s egh; FLk;gj;ij rhptu ftzpf;ftpy;iy vdpy; mLj;J thhpRjhh;fspy; xUtUf;F muR gzp tH';f ghprPypf;fyhk; vd bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mjd; go kDjhuh; jdJ kfs; bry;tp vd;gth; FLk;jpdUf;F cjtp VJk; bra;aykhy; cs;sdh; vd;Wk; mjd; go fhyk; brd;w muR CHpauhd Rg;gpukzp FLk;gj;jpy; CdKw;nwhh; kfshd bry;tp/rhpjh vd;gth; jtpu ntW ahUk; muR kw;Wk; jdpahh; Jiwapy; gzpg[hpatpy;iy/

¶48

4/ fhyk;brd;w muR CHpauhd Rg;gpukzp j- bg/Kdprhkp ,we;j gpwJ mtuJ kidtp jpUkjp/uhjhk;khs; vd;gth; kWkdk;

¶49

5/10

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

W.A.No.833 of 2023

¶52

bra;Jf;bfhs;stpy;iy tpjitahf thH;e;J tUfpwhh;/

¶53

5/ fhyk;brd;w muR CHpauhd Rg;gpukzp j-bg/Kdprhkp FLk;gk; tWik epiyapy; cs;sJ/

¶54

6/ fhyk;brd;w muR CHpauhd Rg;gpukzp j-bg/Kdprhkp vd;gthpd; FLk;gj;jpdUf;F epyj;jpd; K:yk; Mz;Lf;F U : /24.000-? fpilf;fwJ/ nkYk; fhyk;brd;w muR CHpauhd Rg;gpukzp j-bg/Kdprhkp vd;gth; 2004k; Mz;L gpwF gzpapy; nrh;e;Js;sjhy; ,tUf;F g[jpa Xa;t{jpa jpl;lj;jpd; go xa;t{jpak; VJk; tH';fg;gltpy;iy/"

¶55

If the condition imposed in G.O.(Ms)No.155 is applied to the case of the deceased employee's family, i.e., appellant's family who is the son of the deceased employee, the sister of the appellant being a differently abled person, on that quota even though she got a permanent job from TANGEDCO, the salary that she had earned is being utilised for her expenses alone and she is not supporting the family of the deceased i.e., appellant's family and this has been specifically stated by the Tahsildar in the certification dated 19.02.2016 which we have extracted herein above. In paragraph No.5 of the certification dated 19.02.2016, the Tahsildar has further stated that still the family is in indigent circumstances.

¶56

6/10

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

W.A.No.833 of 2023

¶59

This aspect has not been considered by the respondents while rejecting the plea of the appellant through the order dated 19.03.2018.

¶60

Therefore, we do feel that, the order passed by the writ Court without

¶61

considering these aspects in proper perspective by rejecting the writ petition may be erroneous one, hence it requires interference at our hands. Resultantly, the following orders are passed in this writ appeal:

¶62

(i) that the impugned order is set aside. As a sequel, the order impugned before the writ Court dated 19.03.2018 is also set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration.

¶63

(ii) While reconsidering the same, the certificate issued by the Tahsildar dated 19.02.2016 and any other certificates / documents which are necessary for considering the indigent circumstances of the family of the appellant / petitioner can be verified and by applying the condition imposed under Clause (3) of G.O.(Ms)No.155, Labour and Employment Department dated 16.07.1993, the application submitted by the appellant / petitioner shall be considered objectively and a decision thereon to be made on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶64

7/10

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

W.A.No.833 of 2023

¶67