Heard, Mr. R.Rengaramanujam, the learned counsel for petitioner and Ms.C.K.Vishnupriya, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. The Original application in O.A.No. 605 of 2002 (W.P.No.5721 of 2007) has been filed to quash the order, dated 09.03.2001, of the third respondent, namely, the District Educational officer, Karur, rejecting the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the death of his mother.
3. The mother of the petitioner was employed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Panchayat Union Primary School at Pallapatti of Aravakurichi Panchayat Union. She unfortunately died on 03.02.1993 due to snake bite, leaving behind the petitioner, who is the son of deceased and two daughters, besides her husband.
4. The sole reason for passing the impugned order is that the father of the petitioner was employed in an aided school, as a Craft Teacher and according to impugned order, if any of the members of the deceased Government servant is in employment, whether in Government or otherwise, the dependents of the deceased Government servant are not entitled to compassionate appointment, in view of G.O.Ms.No.998, Labour and Employment Department, dated 2.5.1981.
5. It is true that the aforesaid Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.998, Labour and Employment Department, dated 2.5.1981, makes it clear that if any member of the family of the deceased government servant is in employment, the dependent members of the deceased government servant are not eligible for compassionate appointment. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice the later Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.7.93, wherein the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.998, Labour and Employment Department, dated 2.5.1981, was also referred to. The relevant paragraphs of the said G.O 155 is extracted hereunder:-
" 1. One of the conditions prescribed under the scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds formulated in the G.O. first read above is that the family of deceased Government servant should be in 'indigent circumstances'. Another condition introduced in the G.O. third read above is that if there is already any earning member in the family of the Government servant who died in harmness, the other dependents of the deceased Government servant will not be eligible for compassionate appointment.
2. The Government have re-examined the above mentioned conditions. The expression 'indigent circumstances' has not been precisely defined. It has been left mostly to the subjective satisfaction of the appointing authorities. Therefore the Service Associations have represented that this condition be deleted. The family of a deceased Government servant is entitled Provident Fund accumulations, Family Benefit, Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, Encashment of leave at credit at the time of death etc., The Government consider that those amounts or the interest earnings that will accrue on depositing these amount, need not be taken into consideration. It is therefore necessary to ascertain whether the family is having immovable property like houses, lands etc., the income from which is substantial to sustain the family without any extra help. The Government therefore direct that the criteria for indigent circumstances is that the family should not own any house or landed properties or if owned, the income from which is insufficient to sustain the family. A certificate from the Tahsildar to this effect will have to be produced.
3. In regard to the second condition mentioned in para 1 above, it is considered that if a member of the family is already in employment and supports the family then the restriction may be applied. When a dependent of the family is employed, the factors tobe 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 dependents will be considered".
6. In para 3 of the said G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.7.93, it is stated that if a member of the family is in employment and supports the family, it has to be ascertained whether he is regularly employed and he is actually supporting the family. If such a person in employment is not actually supporting the family, then it goes without saying that the family has no support, and in such circumstances, the Government lend its hand by providing compassionate appointment, on the death of the Government servant.
7. In this case, the respondent has filed a reply affidavit and para 3 of the reply affidavit is extracted hereunder:-
"Her husband Thiru D. Gnanamuthu, Weaving Instructor, Pallapatti Higher Secondary School, Pallapatti was on leave from 19.1.90 to 24.3.93 and continued his leave on loss of pay on Medical Certificate. He was referred to the Medical Board by the Management and the Medical Board recommended for Medical invalidation on 4.4.94 and he was permitted to retire on Medical invalidation by the Management on the basis of the report of the Medical Board with effect from 4.4.94."
8. As per Para-3 of the reply affidavit, the father of the petitioner was admittedly working in an aided school. But, he was on leave from 19.1.1990 to 24.3.1993 and continued his leave on loss of pay on medical certificate. That is, the father of the petitioner was on leave at loss of pay from the year 1990 onwards. That is, even before the death of the mother of the petitioner on 03.02.1993, the father of the petitioner was sick and ultimately, he was retired due to medical invalidation, on 4.4.94. It is stated that thereafter, he died on 09.06.2001. Thus, the father of the petitioner did not support the family, though he was technically in employment, before the death of his mother. The emphasis in G.O.155 is to ascertain, whether the family of the deceased Government servant has the support from any other members of the family. If the answer is "no", then the family of the deceased Government servant is entitled to seek compassionate appointment.
9. Therefore, from the facts as disclosed in the counter affidavit, the father of the petitioner, though in employment, did not support the family, even in the year, 1990 itself. Therefore, as per para 3 of the G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993, the dependent family members are entitled to compassionate employment on the death of Tmt. Kamalam, the Secondary Grade Teacher. But, unfortunately the third respondent had failed to take into account the letter and spirit of the G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993.
10. Hence, the Impugned order is contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993. Hence, the same is quashed and the third respondent is directed to consider the application for compassionate appointment by the petitioner in the light of the G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.
sms To
1. The Government Tamilnadu, Rep by its secretary, Educational Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9.
2. Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
3.District Educational Officer, Karur District, Karur