Madras High Court
K.Valarmathi vs The Chief Secretary To Government on 3 October, 2023
WA.No.2743 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.10.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Writ Appeal No.2743 of 2022
K.Valarmathi ..
Appellant
Versus
1. The Chief Secretary to Government,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Additional Secretary to Government,
Energy Department, Secretariat,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
3. The Chairman Cum Managing Director,
TANGEDCO Ltd., N.P.K.R.R.Maaligai,
144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
4. The Chief Engineer / Personnel,
TANGEDCO Ltd., N.P.K.R.R.Maaligai,
144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
5. The Superintendenting Engineer,
TANGEDCO Ltd., Capper Malai,
Cuddalore District.
6. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
TANGEDCO, Kovilpatti,
Tuticorin District. .. Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
WA.No.2743 of 2022
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside
the order dated 07.09.2022 made in WP.No.12557 of 2017.
For Appellant : M/s. Dakshayani Reddy, Senior Advocate
for Mr.P.Arumugavel
For R1 & R2 : Mr.S.Balamurugan,
Government Advocate
For R3 to R6 : Mr.P.Subramanian,
Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
Challenging the order of dismissal passed by the learned Judge in
W.P.No.12557 of 2017 on 07.09.2022, the present writ appeal has been filed by the
writ petitioner.
2.The appellant's father by name K.Kalyanasundaram, was working as
Assistant Executive Engineer in TANGEDCO, Virudhachalam, and he died on
25.05.2012 while he was in service. The appellant, who completed B.E.Degree,
submitted an application before the authorities on 22.03.2013 for providing her
compassionate appointment. At that time, she was unmarried and her mother and
brother expressed no objection for providing compassionate appointment to the
appellant. While so, she got married on 12.05.2013, with a person employed in a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.No.2743 of 2022
private firm at Dubai. Resultantly, by order dated 06.08.2016, the application
submitted by the appellant was rejected on the ground that her husband was earning
a substantial sum as salary and hence, the family of the appellant was not in indigent
circumstances. Stating that the husband of the appellant lost his job at Dubai and
further, the concerned Tahsildar gave a certificate to the effect that the family of the
appellant was in indigent circumstances, the appellant filed a writ petition in
W.P.No.12557 of 2017 for quashing the rejection order and for directing the fifth
respondent to conduct enquiry afresh, and pass appropriate orders with respect to
compassionate appointment. By order dated 07.09.2022, the learned Judge dismissed
the writ petition, on the premise that soon after submitting the application for
compassionate appointment, the appellant got married and her husband was earning
a substantial sum as salary. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed.
3.The learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that even though
the appellant submitted her application along with relevant records on 12.03.2013 to
the fifth respondent seeking for compassionate appointment, ie., within ten months
from the date of death of her father, the respondents deliberately kept her application
pending for three years and thereafter, passed the rejection order on 06.08.2016 and
hence, there is no fault on the part of the appellant for the delay. It is further
submitted that the appellant was not married either at the time of death of her father
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.No.2743 of 2022
or on the date of submission of her application and therefore, rejecting her application
after three years, on the ground that her husband was gainfully employed, is
unsustainable. In fact, on the date of passing of the rejection order by the authority,
the appellant's husband was not employed anywhere; and that, the appellant's
husband deserted the appellant and treated her with cruelty. It is also submitted that
when the fact remained that the Tahsildar, Kovilpatti has issued the Indigent
Circumstance Certificate on 18.04.2013 stating that nobody from the family of the
appellant's father is employed in Government job or in a private company and that,
after the demise of the appellant's father, there is no income for his family and his
family is in indigent circumstances, thereby making it crystal clear that the family is
in indigent circumstances, it is not correct on the part of the learned Judge to pass an
order justifying the rejection order passed by the authority. Therefore, the learned
counsel sought to quash the order of the learned Judge and allow this writ appeal.
4.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents /
TANGEDCO submitted that the learned Judge has passed the impugned order after
taking note of all the facts and circumstances in a proper manner and hence, the same
does not warrant any interference in the hands of this Court.
5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.No.2743 of 2022
carefully and meticulously.
6.It is not in dispute that the father of the appellant died on 25.05.2012,
while he was in service in the respondent department and thereafter, the appellant
sought compassionate appointment within the limitation period, by making
application on 12.03.2013, enclosing no objection expressed by the other legal heirs
of the deceased employee. Without properly verifying the actual facts, the respondent
authorities rejected the claim of the appellant. The said rejection order was put to
challenge by the appellant by filing writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned
Judge by the order impugned in this writ appeal. While so, it was observed that the
father of the appellant / writ petitioner died in the year 2012 and almost 10 years had
elapsed; that soon after the submission of the application seeking compassionate
appointment, she got married and her husband was working at Dubai earning a
substantial amount of salary and the same was verified by the authorities and they
came to the conclusion that her family was not in indigent circumstances.
7.According to the appellant, after marriage, the husband of the appellant
lost his job in Dubai and further, the family of the appellant was in indigent
circumstances, which has been substantiated by producing the certificate issued by
the concerned Tahsildar. That apart, during the course of hearing, the learned senior
counsel for the appellant filed an affidavit dated 24.08.2023 of the appellant, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.No.2743 of 2022
which it is stated that the appellant, her mother and younger brother are the legal
heirs of the deceased employee and nobody in the family was employed and they are
living depending upon her father's monthly family pension of Rs.30,000/-. It is
further stated that after her marriage on 12.05.2013, she went with her husband to
Dubai on a temporary residence visa and stayed with her husband during the periods
from 21.11.2013 to 17.01.2014, 24.01.2014 to 08.06.2014 and 10.07.2014 to
30.10.2014 and thereafter, she was residing with her mother till June 2016.
Subsequently, her husband was ordered to leave Dubai and therefore, he returned to
India on 16.06.2016; and he deserted her and treated her with cruelty; and at present,
the appellant and her son are residing along with her mother and are struggling for
daily essentials. It is also stated that she filed a petition for divorce in IDOP No.197
of 2022, which was decreed by the Principal District Court, Srivilliputhur on
22.11.2022. In the year 2018, she requested her husband to pay maintenance to her,
but he has not paid any amount, saying that he is getting only a sum of Rs.27,000/-
per month and staying with his parents and they are dependent on him. The
appellant's husband further went on to threaten the appellant that if she asks for
maintenance, he will take the child from her custody. In fact, on 15.04.2023, he
really took her child from custody and escaped from there. In this connection, the
appellant had lodged a complaint in CSR. No. 136 of 2023 before the Inspector of
Police, Krishnankovil Police Station, Virudhunagar District, and thereafter, she got
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.No.2743 of 2022
back her child at the intervention of the Police. It is also stated that after getting
divorce, she lodged a complaint before the Inspector, AWPS, Srivilliputhur and the
same has been registered in CSR No.219 of 2023 for recovery of Stridhana Articles
and the same is pending for action. To substantiate the averments so made in the
affidavit dated 24.08.2023, additional typed set of papers have been filed by the
appellant, containing the copies of the passport and visa of the appellant, pay slip of
her husband, CSR Nos.136 of 2023 and 219 of 2023 in respect of the complaints
given by her.
8.At the outset, it is important to refer to Board order (Ms) No.13 dated
08.08.2011, issued by the respondent, as per which, the compassionate appointment
be granted to the girl also, who is not married at the time of application and thereafter
being married, subject to production of declaration that she will help the family of her
parents and that, the person who is going to marry the unmarried girl, who had
requested for appointment on compassionate grounds, has to give a declaration that
he will not object the help being extended by her to her parents, in future.
9.As already stated above, the application seeking compassionate
appointment was made by the appellant on 22.03.2013 i.e., well within the limitation
time; and that, the other legal heirs of the deceased employee expressed their consent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.No.2743 of 2022
for providing employment to the appellant on compassionate grounds. Subsequently,
she got married on 12.05.2013, but her husband lost his job and returned to India on
16.06.2016. Without verifying the actual position, the respondent authorities rejected
the appellant's application on 06.08.2016. Within the reasonable time, the appellant
preferred the writ petition on 19.04.2017 challenging the said rejection order and the
same was dismissed only on 07.09.2022 and thus, there is no delay on the part of the
appellant in approaching the court for claiming the relief.
10.That apart, the claim of the appellant was rejected mainly on the ground
that her family was not in indigent circumstances. Now, the documents filed by the
appellant by way of additional typed set of documents as referred to above, would
make it clear that she got divorce from her husband and now, living with her son in
her mother's house and the entire family of the appellant is depending upon the
family pension of her father; and that, the appellant is not getting any help from her
husband, even maintenance.
11.In view of the above stated reasons, the orders impugned herein as well
as in the writ petition, are set aside and a direction is issued to the respondent
authorities to consider the claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment, if
she is otherwise eligible, and offer her an appointment in the respondent-Department.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.No.2743 of 2022
The said exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
12.Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs.
[R.M.D., J.] [M.S.Q., J.]
03.10.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
rk
To
1. The Chief Secretary to Government,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Additional Secretary to Government,
Energy Department, Secretariat,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
3. The Chairman Cum Managing Director,
TANGEDCO Ltd., N.P.K.R.R.Maaligai,
144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
4. The Chief Engineer / Personnel,
TANGEDCO Ltd., N.P.K.R.R.Maaligai,
144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
5. The Superintendenting Engineer,
TANGEDCO Ltd., Capper Malai,
Cuddalore District.
R. MAHADEVAN, J
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.No.2743 of 2022
rk
6. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
TANGEDCO, Kovilpatti,
Tuticorin District.
Writ Appeal No.2743 of 2022
03.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
