Provide Job To Sister Of SC Man Killed In 2020 In Caste-Based Crime: Madras High Court To State

Justice L Victoria Gowri of the Madurai bench observed that the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the provision of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules mandate providing employment to at least one family member of a deceased person along with basic pension.

“Since the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the provision of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, is a Special Act and relevant Rules, when the Special Act mandates to provide basic pension along with employment to one of the family members of the deceased, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner's claim is entitled to be allowed,” the court observed.

Serial No. 46 of Annexure I of the Schedule states that in addition to the relief amount paid, additional relief in the form of basic pension to the widow and other dependants of the deceased person amounting to Rs. 5000 per month, as applicable to a government servant of the concerned State Government or Union territory Administration, with admissible dearness allowance and employment to one member of the family of the deceased, and provision of agricultural land, a house, if necessary by outright purchase may also be arranged within three months of the date of atrocity.

In the present case, the woman’s father, Kalimuthu had filed the plea to direct the authorities to consider his representations and to provide employment to his daughter based on her educational qualifications.

Kalimuthu, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, said his elder son Karthikeyan was murdered by persons belonging to the forward community on January 1, 2020. He further submitted that the police had identified the accused person, arrested them, and a criminal case was also registered for the offences under Sections 302 (two counts), 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) of I.P.C and Section 3(i) (r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act.

He further informed the court that as per the directions of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, the District Collector granted him compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,12,500  as per the Act. He added that he has another son and daughter and since the son is disabled, he had made representations to the authorities seeking employment for his daughter as per Rule 12(4) of the 2016 Rules.

The Special Government Pleader, however, submitted that since compensation had already been paid, there was no question of providing employment to the surviving daughter.

The court disagreed with this view and held that the Act mandates providing basic pension along with employment and directed the authorities to provide employment based on the woman’s educational qualifications.

“The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that since already compensation has been paid to the petitioner, the question of providing employment to the surviving daughter will not arise. Such an argument of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 is not sustainable in view of the fact that the petitioner is relying upon the provision of the Special Act,” the court said.

Case Title: Kalimuthu v The Secretary

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 210

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.B.Arun

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.N.Muthu Vijayan, Mr.V.Malaiyendran