G PRABHAVATHY REBAKKAL Vs. REGISTRAR HIGH COURT MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 16169 of 1989. The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant in this writ appeal. The respondents in the writ petition are the respondents in the writ appeal. We are referring the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petition. One J. A. George, who was functioning as the V Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, died on September 4, 1978, leaving his wife, Glory George, and two daughters, Julie Chandravathi and Prabhavathi Rebakkal, the petitioner. In view of one legal hurdle, of course based on facts, which was presented by the petitioner in getting reliefs at the hands of this court, there is no need to set forth the entire gamut of the factual materials of the case. On November 11, 1988 the petitioner had the benefit of appointment as a Junior Assistant temporarily in the Court of Small Causes, Madras on compassionate grounds. This order was made by the second respondent. On the date of the appointment of the petitioner, her sister Julie Chandravathi, though employed, was married and was living separately. On July 5, 1989 the second respondent addressed a communication to the first respondent to forward the papers to the Government for the purpose of regularisation of the services of the petitioner. At that time it was found out that the petitioner would not be eligible for appointment to the post on compassionate grounds. On an order made by this court on October 31, 1989 directing the second respondent to terminate the appointment of the petitioner, her services have been terminated with effect from October 31, 1989. The petitioner came to this Court impugning the termination of her services. The learned single Judge, who dealt with the writ petition, found that the petitioner was not entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds as per the Government orders and Instructions governing the question and upheld her termination from services and dismissed the writ petition. This writ appeal, as already noted, is directed against the order of the learned single Judge.

(2.) BEFORE we take up the submissions of Mr. K. Doraisami, learned counsel for the petitioner, we must set down that, broadly stated, three conditions have got to be satisfied before there could be appointment on compassionate grounds. One is, the person desiring appointment should have been a dependent of the deceased Government servant, who died in harness. The second is, the family of the deceased Government servant must be in indigent circumstances. The third is, there should not be any other earning member in the family of the deceased Government servant and this disability will be there even if the other earning member in the family is married and living separately and is not extending full support to the family of the deceased Government servant. The learned singly Judge found that conditions 2 and 3 were not all satisfied. The learned singly judge repelled the contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner that there was violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned single Judge did not also countenance the theory of estoppel coming to the rescue of the petitioner.

(3.) MR. K. Doraisami, learned counsel for the petitioner, of course was at pains to impress upon us that the family of the deceased Government servant must be held to be in indigent circumstances. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that the other earning member of the family, namely the sister of the petitioner, though employed, got married and went out of the family before the order of the appointment of the petitioner and hence her employment should not count and further in the present case the principle of equitable estoppel should come to the aid of the petitioner. Even if we should hold that the family of the deceased Government servant was in indigent circumstances applying the norm that indigent circumstances must be assessed with reference to the standard of life of the deceased Government servant as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, yet the hurdle of there being the other earning member of the family even though married and living separately comes in the way of the petitioner having any relief at our hands. The fact was on the date of the appointment of the petitioner her sister Julie Chandravathi who was earning, was married and she could be stated to have gone away to live separately. But G. O. Ms. No. 998, Labour and Employment dated May 2, 1981 read along with the instructions adumberated in the letter No. 36907/ni 86. 1, dated May 5, 1982, has settled his issue by stating that the concession is not admissible even in cases where the earning member of the family of the deceased Government servant is married and living separately and/or not extending his full support to the family of the deceased Government servant.