The Madras High Court recently allowed a writ petition filed by a man seeking compassionate appointment after the demise of his mother, who held the position of headmistress in a government school.
The petitioner approached the court after the District Education Officer rejected his application on the basis that his father was already employed, and he was receiving a monthly pension of Rs 35,150, following his mother’s demise.
The bench of Justice L Victoria Gowri observed that two government orders explicitly stipulated that in instances where an individual within the family of the dead government servant had been employed prior to the demise, but was residing independently without providing any assistance to the family, the claims of other eligible dependents would be examined. Importantly, the family pension of the deceased employee would not be factored into the assessment of the family’s income.
The single judge bench expressed the view that the petitioner’s case fell squarely within the purview of both of these government orders.
Therefore, it held that the petitioner’s application ought to have been properly appreciated by the District Education Officer, however, the said exercise was not properly done.
Accordingly, the court quashed the impugned order passed by the District Education Officer and directed the officer to provide a suitable job to the petitioner under compassionate ground, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of court’s order.
The petitioner’s mother passed away in 2018 while in active service. She was survived by her husband, the petitioner and her daughter. It was brought to the court’s attention that prior to her demise, the petitioner’s father had been residing away from the family and was leading an independent life.
Consequently, the petitioner had submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment. The application was, however, declined on the grounds that the petitioner’s father was employed as an assistant in a cooperative sugar mill, earning a monthly salary of Rs 25,898 and the petitioner was receiving a pension.
Comments
0 comment