G. Gnanavalli vs State of Tamil Nadu

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Petitioner''s mother was employed as Sanitary Worker in the second Respondent Municipality. She died on 17.11.1997 while in service, leaving behind the Petitioner and her sister as her legal heirs. The Petitioner got married before the death of her mother. However, her marital life did not go well and the same ended in divorce on 06.07.1998 in H.M.O.P. No. 38/1998 by the Sub Judge, Karur. Hence, she sought compassionate appointment on the ground that she is a deserted woman. But no order was passed by the second Respondent Municipality either accepting or rejecting her request for compassionate appointment. However, the second Respondent wrote a letter to the Commissioner of Municipal Administration seeking clarification as to whether the Petitioner, who obtained divorce after the death of her mother, could be given compassionate appointment. It is now stated that no order is passed so far.

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the matter is squarely covered by the following decisions of this Court.

a) U. Arulmozhi Vs. The Director of School Education, The Chief Educational Officer, The District Educational Officer and The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,

b) G. Girija v. The Assistant Director (Panchayats) reported in 2008 (5) CTC 686

c) Mohanambal Vs. Director, Land and Survey Department, Kancheepuram District and Others,

The learned Government Advocate submits based on instructions that since the Petitioner obtained divorce after the death of her mother, should could not be considered for compassionate appointment. The second Respondent sought clarification from the Commissioner of Municipal Administration and so far, there is no reply from the Commissioner of Municipal Administration.

Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

In the judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the daughters of the Government servants, who died in harness, were declined compassionate appointment on the ground that they were married. While the marriage is not a disqualification for the son of a Government servant, the same could not be cited as a disqualification for the daughter of a Government servant. This Court in the aforesaid judgments held that marriage could not be cited as a disqualification for considering the case of the daughters for compassionate appointment.

Applying the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments, a direction is issued to the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the aforesaid judgments, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.