Introduction:

The Madras High Court recently addressed the complexities surrounding compassionate appointments, emphasizing a Government Order that excludes family pension from income assessment. In the case of M Yogamagi v The Secretary to the Government, the petitioner sought compassionate appointment after her mother’s demise. Despite facing rejection based on family income, the court delved into the Government Order, asserting that family pension need not be considered while evaluating eligibility for compassionate appointments.

Arguments:

The petitioner’s application was rejected on grounds that her father, employed at Krishnapuram Amaravathy Co-Operative Sugar Mills, drew a substantial salary. The State argued that the family received a monthly pension of Rs. 35,150 post the mother’s death. However, the petitioner contended that her father lived independently before her mother’s demise, challenging the rejection on compassionate grounds. The court acknowledged the petitioner’s plea and found fault in the District Education Officer’s assessment.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice L Victoria Gowri, citing Government Order (G.O.) (Ms) No.18, highlighted that if a family member lived separately without contributing financially, it wouldn’t hinder compassionate appointments. Additionally, the G.O. clarified that family pension should be excluded when evaluating the family’s income. The court set aside the rejection order, directing authorities to provide a suitable job on compassionate grounds within 12 weeks. This decision reinforces the humane aspect of compassionate appointments, ensuring deserving cases aren’t overlooked due to technicalities.