Call For Equity Ameliorated My Judicial Conscience- Madras HC While Suo Moto Ordering Compassionate Appointment For Widow Of Deceased Frontline Corona Warrior
The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, while noting that it is the bounden duty of the Court to secure the right to livelihood of the wife of a Health Inspector who lost his life fighting on the frontlines of corona pandemic, suo moto directed the Directorate of General Health and Preventive Medicine to consider the widow's representation for compassionate appointment and issue her with an appointment order suitable to her educational qualification within a period of four weeks.
The Court allowed the Petition, setting aside the impugned order seeking to recover a housing loan (House Building Advance) taken by the deceased from the government just before his death and also ordered that the government must waive interest towards the loan amount.
Justice L. Victoria Gowri observed, “I am not hesitant to hold that it is the bounden duty of this Court to enforce the right of livelihood guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India with the mother's conscience in the service of Motherland. It is the duty of this Court to secure the livelihood of the petitioner and her mother-in-law as a tribute towards the greatest service contributed by her husband during corona pandemic as a frontline corona warrior for which he invested his life”.
Advocate Jeena Rita David appeared for the Petitioner, Advocate S.Shanmugavel and Government Pleader D.S Neduncheliyan appeared for the Respondents.
The Petitioner's husband, a Health Inspector Grade-I, had availed a House Building Advance (HBA) which was sanctioned by the government. However, the HBA scheme was only available to government servants who had completed at least 5 years of service before their retirement at the time of applying for the scheme. Unfortunately, the Petitioner passed away due to COVID-19 within 7 days of receiving the first instalment of the HBA, and the salary for November was not disbursed. The HBA scheme required the Respondents to deduct 1% of the monthly subscription to avail benefits under the Tamil Nadu Government Employees House Building Advance special family benefit fund scheme (HBA). In such circumstances, the Fifth Respondent ordered the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- with interest towards the first installment, failing which the same would be deducted from the terminal benefits. The Petitioner approached the Court by way of a Writ Petition to challenge the order.
“The untold difficulty of a bereaving family of a deceased person, who passed away unexpectedly, could not be explained by anyone from any point of view”, the Court observed.
The Court noted that the case was filed by the wife of a Health Inspector who served during the COVID-19 pandemic and died due to the stress and strain of his job. His wife filed a case as he had availed of a House Building Advance loan before his death and was asked to repay it with interest within 15 days of his death. The Court asserted that the Petitioner was facing financial difficulties due to the medical expenses incurred during her husband's treatment.
“The final call for equity by an awe struck widow ameliorated my judicial conscience to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in granting an equitable relief to her. The respondents ought to have dealt with this case with much compassion, kindness and social responsibility. The surviving legal heirs of a frontline corona warrior who relentlessly served for the purpose of common mankind during the pandemic have been thrown to the streets virtually subjecting them to consistent mental harassment by insisting the repayment of House Building Advance loan advance with interest. The repeated call for repayment of loan by the respondents would have caused untold misery in the lives of the surviving legal heirs of late.M.Nainar Mohammed ie., his wife, the petitioner and his mother, who is a senior citizen”, the Court observed.
Furthermore, the Court noted that it is the primordial duty of the Court to act judiciously and direct the authorities to undo the difficulties caused by the unruly exercise of the powers by the authorities.
The Court observed, “Article 226 of the Constitution confers vide powers on the High Court to reach injustice wherever it is found. Not only injustice in a populous country like India with the millions of Citizens, this Court is empowered to interfere whenever the right of livelihood of a citizen that too women is at stake. It is the primordial duty of the Constitutional Court to act judiciously and direct the authorities to undo the difficulties caused by the unruly exercise of the powers by the authorities”.
Therefore, the Court directed the Sixth Respondent to issue a compassionate appointment within four weeks and instructed the Respondent to waive the interest towards the entire loan amount drawn by the petitioner's husband as the first installment of the HBA scheme. Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition and set aside the impugned order.
Cause Title: M.Sharmila Banu v The Secretary to the Government
