Pension for compassionate appointment should not impact family income assessment: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently allowed a writ petition filed by a man seeking compassionate appointment after the demise of his mother, who held the post of headmistress in a government school.

The petitioner approached the court after the District Education Officer rejected his application on the grounds that his father was already working and was getting a monthly pension of Rs 35,150 after the demise of his mother.

A bench of Justice L Victoria Ghauri said that the two government orders clearly state that in cases where a person from the family of the deceased government servant was employed before the death but without providing any assistance to the family, Was residing formally, other eligible dependents claimed will be scrutinized. Importantly, the family pension of the deceased employee will not be included in the calculation of family income.

The single judge bench expressed the view that the case of the petitioner falls squarely within the ambit of these two government orders.

Therefore, it was held that the application of the petitioner should have been properly appreciated by the District Education Officer, however, the said work was not done properly.

Accordingly, the court quashed the order passed by the District Education Officer and directed the officer to provide a suitable job to the petitioner on compassionate grounds within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the court’s order.

The petitioner’s mother died while on active service in 2018. She was survived by her husband, the petitioner and her daughter. It was brought to the notice of the Court that before his demise, the petitioner’s father was living separately from the family and leading an independent life.

Consequently, the petitioner had submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment. However, the application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner’s father was employed as an assistant in a co-operative sugar mill, his monthly salary was Rs 25,898 and the petitioner was in receipt of pension.