V LATHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed challenging the correctness of the order passed by the 2nd respondent/the Director, Directorate of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy, Chennai.

(2.) THE petitioner's Late father, while serving as Superintendent in the office of the District Siddha Medical Officer, Salem, died on 16.01.94, leaving behind the petitioner's mother and the petitioner and two sisters as his legal heirs. Though the petitioner was admittedly married on 14.06.1981, subsequently, due to strained relationship between the petitioner and her husband, she was deserted by her husband in the year 1987 and subsequently, she started living with her parents. THEreafter, in the year 1992, a release deed was executed between the petitioner and her husband and thereafter, her desertion was also certified by the Tahsildar, Tiruchengode on 02.05.94. While so, the petitioner being considered as dependant of the deceased father, who died on 16.01.94, was appointed as Junior Assistant in the office of the 3rd respondent. When the petitioner was serving as Junior Assistant, the 2nd respondent/Director of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy has issued the order of termination on the ground that the petitioner was living with her husband on the date of death of her father. THE said order is now under challenge.

(3.) THE petitioner's father Venkatesan, died in harness, while serving as Superintendent in the office of the District Siddha Medical Officer, Salem, leaving behind the petitioner's mother, the petitioner and two daughters as his legal heirs. Even before the death of her father Late Venkatesan, the petitioner was married to one T.V.Durairaj, who is a close relative of the petitioner's family, inspite of the vast age difference between them. Out of the said wedlock, two children were born in the year 1982 and 1984 respectively. THE matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and her husband got strained as the petitioner's husband had an illegal affair with another lady and as a result, the petitioner was cruelly treated. Subsequently, the petitioner was deserted by her husband from 14.06.1987. As the conciliation efforts from both sides met with a breakdown, in the presence of panchayatars, the petitioner's husband executed a release deed dissolving the marriage between him and the petitioner on 08.04.92 and, thereafter, the petitioner's husband also remarried another woman. Since then, they are living separately. After the execution of the release deed, the status of the desertion of the petitioner was also certified by the Tahsildar, Tiruchengode. That apart, a decree of divorce issued by the Subordinate Judge, Sankari, in H.M.O.P.No.27 of 95, dated 21.08.95 also shows that the petitioner's marriage was dissolved. Only after the production of the desertion certificate dated 02.05.94 issued by the Tahsildar, Tiruchengode and the decree of divorce issued by the Civil Court dated 21.08.95, the appointment order dated 30.04.97 was issued appointing the petitioner under General Rule 10 (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules on compassionate ground posting the petitioner at Government Siddha Medical College, Palayamkottai to fill up the existing vacancy. Since the order of appointment appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground was issued much after the desertion of the petitioner, which is duly supported by the decree of divorce, the certificate of desertion issued by the Tahsildar and the release deed executed in the presence of the panchayatars, the reasoning given by the respondents in the impugned order stating that the petitioner was living with her husband on the date of death of her father, does not stand to any good reason and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Further, the decree of divorce issued by the Civil Court in H.M.O.P.No.27 of 95, dated 21.08.95, also clearly proves the fact that the petitioner is a deserted lady. In view of the above reasons, this Court, by taking into account judicial notice of the interim order passed by the Tribunal, by which the petitioner is continuously in service till now, finds no justification in sustaining the order of termination. Useful reference can also be made to a reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others V. K.P.Tiwari ((2003) 9 SCC 129, wherein the Apex Court has held that it would not be appropriate to disturb an appointment if the person is in service for more than 5 years. In the present case, the petitioner has been in service for the last 14 years from the date of her appointment. In that view of the matter, the order of termination is set aside and the respondents are directed to grant all other benefits to which the petitioner is entitled as expeditiously as possible, if not granted, in view of the pendency of the case. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed.