Madras High Court
The District Collector vs P.Pandiarajan on 13 August, 2024
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
2024:MHC:3113
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 13.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
W.A(MD)No.1351 of 2024
1.The District Collector,
(Noon Meal Section),
Office of the District Collector,
Madurai District, Madurai.
2.The Commissioner,
T.Kallupatti Panchayat Union,
T.Kallupatti,Maduai District. ... Appellants/Respondents
.Vs.
P.Pandiarajan ... Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act praying this
Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.667 of 2024,
dated 15.3.2024.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Govt.Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.P.Mahendran
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN.,J)
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order passed by this Court in
W.P(MD)No.667 of 2024, dated 15.3.2024.
2.The respondent’s mother was working as Assistant Cook in Tamil Nadu
Government Noon Meal Scheme at K.Perumalpatti Panchayat Union Primary
School, T.Kallupatti Panchayat Union, Madurai District..While in service, she
died on 17.4.2018 survived by the respondent and two of his sisters. The
Petitioner/respondent herein made an application, dated 25.6.2018 before the
first appellant for compassionate appointment on the ground of sudden death of
his mother. Since the Writ Petitioner’s application was not considered by the
appellants, he filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.15559 of 2023 before this
Court. This Court also directed the respondents therein to consider the
representation of the Petitioner, dated 25.6.2018 and pass appropriate orders by
order, dated 24.8.2023. Based on the said order, the Writ Petitioner sent a detailed
representation along with a copy of the order of this Court. Since the appellants
have not taken any steps to consider his representation based on the order of this
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Court,he issued a contempt notice. Thereafter, the first respondent passed a
rejection order on 22.12.2023. Challenging the same, the respondent filed a writ
Petition in W.P(MD)No.667 of 2024, The Writ Court after considering the matter,
allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the rejection order passed by the first
appellant, dated 22.12.2023 and directed the appellants to provide compassionate
appointment to the respondent herein within a period of 12 weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of the order. Challenging the same, the appellants have filed
the present Writ Appeal before this Court.
3.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as per G.O.Ms215,
Social Welfare and Nutritious Meals Programme Department, dated 8.9.1998,
only female members are eligible to be appointed in the post of Organizers and
cooks and that in G.O.Ms.No.198, dated 25.10.2007, only when no female
members are available in the family of the deceased Noon Meal staff, the male
member can be considered and in such a case, he could be appointed only as a
cook in Puratchithalaivar Dr.MGR Nutririous Meal Programme as per
G.O.Ms.No.215, Social Welfare and Noon Meal Programme, dated 8.9.1998. The
said power has been given only to the District Colletors themselves namely, the
3/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
first appellant herein. In this case, female legal heirs of the deceased worker is
available. Therefore, the respondent is only a male member and he could not be
recommended and even as per G.O.Ms.No.78, Social Welfare and Noon Meal
Programme Department,dated 25.10.2026 followed it with a clarification of the
Government in Govt.Letter No.13658/NMP 4-2/2016-1, dated 17.2.2017 by
stating that if the female heirs of the deceased worker is available, the male
member should not be recommended and the same was communicated to all the
District Collectors and subordinates by the Director of Social Welfare and
Women Empowerment Department, Chennai vide letter No.12751/E3-4/2016,
dated 17.3.2017.
4.Further he would submit that the Government of Tamil Nadu has taken a
policy decision and issued Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.48,Social Welfare
and Women Empowerment(NM 4.2) Department, dated 18.8.2021 only female
heirs of the deceased workers of Noon Meal Programme Scheme could be given
appointment on compassionate grounds basing on their eligibility criteria and
that no male legal heirs are eligible to be given appointment on compassionate
grounds. In this case, the deceased worker was having three legal heirs among
4/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
them, 2 of them are female legal heirs and one is the respondent, a male legal
heir.. When the female heirs are available and as per various Government
Orders and Government schemes and also various circulars issued in this regard
by the Department to the District Collectors that the female members should be
given preference, but however, when there is no suitable female heirs are
available in the family, then the request of the male heirs can be considered.
5.Admitedly, in this case, the deceased worker died while she was in
service, leaving behind two daughters and one son. Two daughters already got
married and they are living with their husband. The respondent herein is aged
about 22 years at the time of death of the deceased worker and he is also a
qualified person and other two female heirs have also given their no objection
letter for providing appointment on compassionate grounds to the respondent. So
based on that, the respondent has submitted the application before the appellants.
The appellants did not consider his request as per the earlier order made in the
Writ Petition, despite the fact that the Court has given a direction for
consideration. Without considering the factual matrix in this case, simply they
rejected quoting the Government Orders. Therefore, the respondent has
5/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
challenged the rejection order and filed the Writ Petition against the impugned
order.
6.The learned Single Judge considered all the aspects and also the
Government orders and considering the fact that there are three legal heirs, out
of which two female legal heirs have given no objection letter and that the
female legal heirs also already got married and left the parental home and living
in the matrimonial home.Though the learned Additional Government Pleader
citing the Government Orders stated that the marital status is not a bar for getting
employment on compassionate grounds whereas in this case female heirs are not
claiming any appointment on compassionate grounds and they also given no
objection letter.The only available legal heir is the male legal heir, ie, the
rspondent.Though he is a male heir, there is no total bar to give appointment to
the male heir. Though the Government of Tamil Nadu has taken a policy decision
as per G.O.Ms.No.48, Social Welfare and Women Empowerment(NM 4.2)
Department, dated 18.8.2021 only female heirs of the deceased worker of Noon
Meal Scheme should be given opportunity of appointment on compassionate
grounds and no male legal heirs are eligible to be given appointment, but the
6/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
object behind this is to engage female and women empowerment. But however
other Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.198, dated 25.10.2007, it has been
clarified that when no suitable female legal heirs are available in the family of
the deceased Government staff, then male legal heirs can be considered for
appointment on compassionate grounds. Admittedly in this case, the other two
female heirs have given no objection letter and also they stayed with their
husbands and at the time of the deceased worker, the respondent was unmarried
person who was depending on the income of the deceased worker and the scope
of appointment on compassionate grounds is to replace the immediate suffering
of the deceased worker. Since the other two female membes are already got
married even during the lifetime of the deceased worker and the only person is
the respondent who is also a dependant of the deceased worker as on the date of
filing the application and therefore, the learned Single Judge considered all the
facts that there is no legal bar to appoint the male heir on compassionate grounds,
the Writ Petition was allowed. Considering the fact that the female legal heirs
have given no objection letter and and there is no legal impediment to appoint
the respondent on compassionate grounds, thisCourt does not find any reason to
interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, except the reason
7/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
given by the appelants for rejection that the respondent/applicant is a male legal
heir and other two female legal heirs are available. Admittedly, in this case, the
other two female legal heirs have given no objection letter and also even during
the lifetime of the deceased worker the female legal heirs got married and left
the parental home. The respondent alone stayed with the deceased worker as
dependant and hence sought for appointment on compassionate grounds. For all
the above reasons, this Court finds no merit in the Writ Appeal and the same
deserves to be dismissed.
7.In fine, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
[P.V.,J.] [K.K.R.K.,J.]
08.08.2024
NCS : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
vsn
8/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
and
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
13.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
