The Madras High Court directed the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner's daughter by considering her educational qualification as per Serial No.46 of Annexure I r/w 12(4) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Rules, 2016 within twelve weeks.

The High Court held so while considering a petition seeking issuance of Mandamus and direction to the first to third respondents to provide employment to the petitioner's daughter namely Pavithra by considering her educational qualification as per Serial No. 46 of Annexure-I read with Rule 12(4) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Rules, 2016, within a time frame fixed by this Court.

The Bench of Justice L. Victoria Gowri observed that “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”.

Advocate B. Arun appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate N. Muthu Vijayan appeared for the Respondent.

The brief facts of the case were that the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Case Community and he was a senior citizen. When his elder son namely Karthikeyan was murdered by the forward community people, the police identified the deceased person's body and thereafter, arrested the accused. Resultantly, a criminal case was registered by the sixth respondent against the accused for the offences under Sections 302, 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. Subsequently, the trial commenced and the Principal District Sessions Judge directed the second respondent to grant relief of compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,12,500/- to the petitioner as per the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Rules, 2016. However, the petitioner has got another son and daughter. Since the surviving son is a disabled person, the petitioner, to seek employment for his surviving daughter, made representations before the respondents.

After considering the submission, the Bench noted that 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

The Bench also negated the contention of the Respondent’s counsel that since compensation has already been paid to the petitioner, the question of providing employment to the surviving daughter will not arise, in view of the fact that the petitioner is relying upon the provision of the Special Act.

Thus, the High Court allowed the petition.

Cause Title: Kalimuthu v. Secretary and Ors.

Click here to read/download the Order



Madras High CourtJustice L. Victoria GowriScheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act)

Pankaj Bajpai