[Compassionate Appointment] Family Pension Of Deceased Employee Need Not Be Considered Assessing Family's Income: Madras High Court

Justice L Victoria Gowri was hearing a plea challenging the rejection of compassionate appointment. The court also noted that as per the Government Order, when a person in the family of the deceased was employed before the death but was living separately without extending any financial assistance, the same would not come in the way of giving compassionate appointment.

“A careful perusal of G.O(Ms)No.18 of the Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020, would reveal that if any person, in the deceased Government Servant's family was employed even before the death of the Government Servant but was living separately without extending any help to the family, then the case of other eligible dependant will be considered. It is also mandated in the said G.O(Ms)No.18 of the Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020, the family pension of the deceased employee need not be taken into account while assessing the income of the family,” the court observed.

In the present case, the petitioner's mother was working as a Head Mistress in Panchayat Union Middle School when she passed away in December 2018. She was survived by her husband, who was living an independent life, the petitioner and her daughter. In 2020, when the petitioner made an application seeking compassionate appointment, the same was rejected on the ground that the husband of the deceased was working as Assistant in Krishnapuram Amaravathy Co-Operative Sugar Mills and drawing a salary of Rs. 25,898/-

The state informed the court that the appointment was rightly rejected as the family was receiving a monthly pension of Rs. 35,150/- after the death of the petitioner's mother and the petitioner's father was also drawing a handsome salary.

The court however noted the petitioner's submission that the father was residing far away even before the death of the petitioner's mother and observed that the application was not properly appreciated by the District Education Officer.

The court thus set aside the impugned order of rejection and directed the authorities to provide suitable job on compassionate grounds within 12 weeks.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.K.K.Kannan

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.G.Surya Ananth, Additional Government Pleader

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 31

Case Title: M Yogamagi v The Secretary to the Government and Others

Case No: W.P.(MD).No.23985 of 2022