The Distrcit Collector, v. M. Madhumathi,

JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.) Writ Petitioner is aggrieved with an order rejecting her prayer for compassionate appointment and challenged the same before the Writ Court. The reason for rejection of her request by the respondents had been her status as a married daughter of the deceased. The writ petition had come to be allowed on 19.06.2014, learned Judge, citing and relying upon an order passed in similar circumstances in W.P.(MD)No.18660 of 2013 dated 10.07.2013.

¶2The learned Judge also records the fair concession of the then learned Government Advocate to the effect that the position canvassed by the State was that requests for compassionate appointment by married daughters would be considered favourably in light of the earlier decision of the Court in G.Girija vs. Assistant Director (Panchyats) Kancheepuram District (2008 (5) CTC 685).

¶3In that case, request for compassionate appointment had been made by a married daughter of the deceased, which request had been rejected on the ground of the marital status of that applicant. The writ petition filed by that applicant was allowed by this Court holding that there could not be any discrimination between sons and daughters in the matter of according compassionate appointment. Since married sons were granted compassionate appointment subject to satisfaction of other conditions and there was no hindrance posed by virtue of their marital status, the same position would be applicable in the case of daughters as well.

¶4Thereafter, the State issued G.O.Ms.No.78, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 21.04.2017, where, in para 9.2, it is stated as follows: "(9.2),we;j muR CHpahpd; jpUkzkhd bgz; thhpRjhuh;fspd; fUiz mog;gilapyhd gzp epakdf; nfhhpf;if kD> chpa K:d;whz;L fhyj;jpw;Fs; tHq;fg;gl;L> epuhfhpf;fg;gl;oUg;gpd; mjd; kPJ ePjpkd;wj;jpy;

tHf;F

bjhLj;J

epYitapy; cs;s ,dq;fisa[k;> mt;thW epuhfhpf;fg;gl;L> ePjpkd;wk; bry;yhky; muR mYtyfq;fspy; nky;KiwaPL epYitapy; ,Uf;Fk; ,dq;fisa[k; fUiz

mog;gilapyhd

gzpepakdj;jpw;Fhpa midj;J jFjpfisa[k; epiwt[ bra;a[k;gl;rj;jpy; gzpepakdk; tHq;f ghprPyid bra;ayhk;."

¶5Thus, the State has unambiguously accepted the position that marital status would not stand in the way of daughters seeking and being granted compassionate appointment if they were otherwise eligible.

¶6In the present case, the appellant has infact been appointed to the post of Junior Assistant, Panchayat Union, Sivakasi, by the District Collector on 27.09.2017 referring to Clause 9.2 of G.O.Ms.No.78, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 21.04.2017. There is, however, a vague caveat to the effect that that appointment would be subject to the result of this writ appeal. There is no question of any such caveat in light of the stand of the State in Clause 9.2 of G.O.Ms.No.78, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 21.04.2017. Learned Government Advocate also does not very seriously pursue that position before us now.

¶7This Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. [A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,]

26.07.2023

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes sm TO:

1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Chief Engineer (Agricultural Engineering), 487, Annasalai, Nandanam, Chennai – 35.

3.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003. W.A.(MD)No.1474oofo2014 DR.ANITAoSUMANTH,oJ. AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR,oJ. sm Judgmentomadeoin W.A.(MD)No.1474oofo2014 Dated:

26.07.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.07.2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, @ Virudhunagar. ...Appellant /Vs./ M.Madhumathi ...Respondent PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.8693 of 2014 dated 19.06.2014 on the file of this Court. For Appellant : Mr.T.Amjad Khan Government Advocate For Respondent : Ms.M.Padmavathy