1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8128 of 2011 Mahalakshmi .. Petitioner/Defacto Complainant Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Karur District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Kujiliyamparai Police Station, Karur District. .. Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondent No.2 to register F.I.R. on the basis of the complaint prepared by the petitioner dated 15.06.2011 in accordance with law. Consequently, to direct the respondent No.2 to complete the investigation and file charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Rajarajan, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.M.Saravanakumar O R D E R This petitioner has come forward with this application for directing the respondent No.2 to register F.I.R. on the basis of the complaint prepared by the petitioner dated 15.06.2011 in accordance with law. Consequently, to direct the respondent No.2 to complete the investigation and file charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate within the time stipulated by this Court. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's mother Savithiri, Who was working as Sweeper in Palayam Town Panchayat, Dindigul District, died on 05.08.2009 much prior to her superannuation at her age of 45. After https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 her death, the petitioner has approached Mr.Natrayan, who was the Executive Officer (E.O) of Palayam Panchayat and presented an application, requesting him to appoint the petitioner in the place of her mother in compassionate ground. But, the said Executive Officer, after getting illegal gratification from the petitioner's brother viz., Gobi, taken steps to accommodate him in the place of the petitioner's mother and accordingly, he was placed. 3.He would further submit that the entire records pertaining to the petitioner's mother including the Service records disclose that both the petitioner and her brother Gobi are the legal heirs of the deceased Savithiri. He would further submit that even though, according to the service records, the entire monetary benefit have to be given equally to both the petitioner and her brother Gopi, except the arrears of the earned leave salary Rs.20,198/-, no amount has been given to the petitioner. The said Executive Officer has attempted to give rest of the monetary benefits only to the petitioner's brother by getting illegal gratification and hence, the petitioner has filed W.P.(MD) No.9036 of 2010, which is pending before this Court. 4.He would further submit that the accused has manipulated the records relating to the petitioner's mother's service and forged some documents. He would further submit that the Executive Officer, in his official capacity, sanctioned some amount which would have to be given equally to the petitioner and her brother, but after getting illegal gratification from Gobi, he gave the amount only to her brother. Since the Executive Officer is violating the Code of conduct and disbursed the money only to the brother of the petitioner, he is punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act and hence, the petitioner has given a complaint before the 2nd respondent and since no steps have been taken so far, she has come forward with this application. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor/Executive Officer would submit that the Government servant, who die in harness shall mean only the Widow or the husband (as the case may be), Son, unmarried daughter, legally adopted son and legally adopted unmarried daughter of the deceased Government Servant alone are eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds and therefore, since the petitioner is a married daughter, she is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 6.He would further submit that the petitioner has given no objection before the Peace Committee consisted by the 2nd respondent and some other important persons of the village for appointing her brother M.Gobi under compassionate grounds. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7.He would further submit that the original nominee is Gobi and the alternative nominee is the petitioner Mahalakshmi. Under the death cum retirement gratuity and Group Insurance scheme as shown in her service register should cover the whole amount payable to the original nominee. Accordingly, the Director of Local Fund, Accounts Chennai, has sanctioned the Death cum Retirement Gratuity and the entire amount has been sent by cheque to Gopi, who is the original nominee. 8.He would further submit that the petitioner has filed a writ petition and the same is pending. The deceased Savithiri has nominated her daughter and her son for Salary for earned leave, Pongal Bonus, Interest on Provident Fund Account, Provident Fund Account and Special Provident Fund cum gratuity scheme and accordingly, 50% of the amount has been paid to each nominee and when the account is sanctioned by the Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Dindigul, the intervenor has acted in accordance with rules and he has not manipulated any documents and records and he has sanctioned 50% share to the petitioner and her brother. Even though, the petitioner has filed a writ petition, which is pending before this Court, he has come forward with the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. also and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the application. 9.Considering the rival submission and perusal of the record, it is true the petitioner's mother Savithiri, who was working as Sweeper in Palayam Town Panchayat, Dindigul District, died on 05.08.2009 at the age of 45 years. It is also an admitted fact that she died leaving behind her one daughter Mahalakshmi, the petitioner herein and one Son Gopi. Since she is a Government Servant, she has nominated his son for pension and also Death cum Retirement Gratuity, Group Insurance scheme. The petitioner herein has filed a complaint dated 15.06.2011 before the 2nd respondent and she has also given a representation to the 1st respondent on the same day. The petitioner has produced the affidavit of W.P.(MD) No.9036 of 2010 by way filing additional typed set of papers. But, the 3rd respondent/intervenor herein has filed the government order in G.O.Ms.No.73 dated 26.10.1983, wherein, it was specifically mentioned in clause 2 as follows: "Eligibility for appointment on compassionate grounds: (i) The 'Dependant" of the deceased Government Servant who dies in harness shall mean only the widow or the husband (as the case may be) son, unmarried daughter, legally adopted son and legally adopted unmarried daughter of the deceased Government Servant and they alone are eligible for appointment on Compassionate grounds (G.O.Ms.No.225, Labour dated 15th February 1972, G.O.Ms.No.560, Labour and Employment, dated 3rd August 1977 and Letter No.15672/N1/8-2, dated 4th May 1978) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 (ii) If there is already any earning member in the family the other dependants of the deceased Government Servants are not eligible (G.O.Ms.No.998, Labour and Employment, dated 2nd May 1981 and Government Letter No.36907/N1/81-6, Labour and Employment, dated 5th 1982). (iii) The candidate should possess all the prescribed qualification for the posts concerned (G.O.Ms.No.560, Labour and Employment, dated 3rd August 1977). (iv) The upper age limit for consideration of appointment under compassionate grounds in respect of sons, unmarried daughters and husbands/widows shall be 30/40 years on the date of death of the Government Servant. (G.O.Ms.No.1579, Labour and Employment, dated 21st July 1981 as amended in Letter No.2563/N1- 82-2, Labour and Employment, dated 11th March 1982, Letter No.46571/N1/82-3, Labour and Employment, dated 24th November 1982)." Perusal of the above said government order, it has been stated, only, Widow or the husband, the Son, unmarried daughter, legally adopted son and legally adopted unmarried daughter of the deceased Government Servant and they alone are eligible for appointment on Compassionate grounds 10.Admittedly, on the date of death of Savithiri, the petitioner is married and having child. Hence, as per clause 2 of G.O.Ms.No.73 dated 26.10.1983, the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment. But, the document No.3 filed by the intervenor would show that the son of the deceased Gobi has given a representation to the intervenor. In that, the petitioner has given her consent stating that she has no objection to give appointment to her brother as Sweeper in the place of her mother. Document No.4 filed by the intervenor would reveal that the Director, Local Fund Audit department, Chennai has disbursed the amount of death cum retirement benefit for Rs.1,20,696/- to Gobi. Document No.7 filed by the petitioner is the nomination for Group Insurance Scheme, wherein, the deceased Savithiti has nominated his son as a nominee. In the nomination for Tamilnadu Government Employees Special Provident Fund cum Gratuity scheme, both Mahalakshmi and Gopi were nominated by the deceased. In that it was stated each are entitled 50% share and for General Provident Fund also, she nominated both the parties. In the nomination for death cum retirement gratuity scheme, the brother of the petitioner only was nominated as original nominee by her mother and the petitioner was nominated as alternative nominee. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 11.Considering the all the documents, it is clear that the Intervenor/Executive officer has acted in accordance with law. Therefore, I am of the that with an ulterior motive, the complaint has been given by the petitioner. In such circumstances, I do not find any merits in the application and there is no need to give any direction to register a case and the application deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, this criminal original petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(W) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Karur District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Kujiliyamparai Police Station, Karur District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Pre-Delivery order in Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 8128 of 2011 26.08.2011 ARUL SMA/14.9.2011/4c/5P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/