Writ petitioner was denied appointment since she was married on the day of death of her father
Madras high court
Chennai: The Madras high court dismissed on Friday, an application filed by the assistant director of animal husbandry, Tiruvannamalai, to review an order of the court in 2011, which observed that the married daughter of a deceased government employee was eligible for employment under compassionate grounds. S. Vijayakumari of Vaniyambadi taluk, Vellore district, had filed a writ petition on October 11, 2011 and a favourable judgment was given by Justice D. Hariparanthaman.
While rejecting the contention of the department that Vijayakumari was married at the time of the death of her father, the judge directed the department to provide compassionate appointment to her. Challenging the verdict, the department filed a review application in 2012, which was listed in 2014. Justice Hariparanthaman said, “The writ petitioner was denied compassionate appointment on the sole grounds that on the date of death of her father, 16 December 1993, she was married. According to the authorities, a married daughter is not eligible for compassionate appointment.”
However, in the present review application, the judge pointed out that no reason was given, except for stating that the delay was neither wilful nor wanton.The judge said the order was passed in 2011, and was yet to be complied with while the father of the petitioner had died in 1993. The review application was filed on the grounds that the order was against the amendment to Rule 54-A of general rules which states that only unmarried daughters were eligible for compassionate appointment. Unmarried daughters should be less than 35 years of age.
Dismissing the review application, the judge said, “I have already held that compassionate appointment cannot be negatived on the ground that a daughter is married at the time of the death of her father. Further, the maximum age limit that is prescribed under Rule 54-A also cannot be put against the writ petitioner, since she was less than 35 years of age when the order was passed.”
( Source : dc correspondent )
Next Story
