Madras High Court: In petitions filed relating to the termination order issued by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and to quash the same and consequently direct the Deputy Director of Health Service and Revenue Divisional Officer to regularize the service of the petitioner on the post of Junior Assistant on compassionate basis, C.V. Karthikeyan, J. while dismissing the petitions, was surprised that the petitioner was going to the office knowing that the certificate was obtained on the basis of a false information, and said that this should have rankled him but still he continued to work and continued to draw salary. That salary is paid from and out of the public exchequer and the salary is part of the taxes paid by the public. Thus, as per the Court, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy at all.
The father of the petitioner was working as Health Inspector in Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and had died in 2000 and the petitioner had sought for an indigent certificate to seek employment on compassionate basis.
The Court said that this is a case where the petitioner had suppressed a vital information and had obtained the certificate declaring that not only him, but the whole family, after the death of the father was in indigent circumstances. It was false information given to Tahsildar. The certificate was issued in the year 2010, when the petitioner was aged 30 years, thus, he should be aware of the consequences of suppression of vital fact and obtaining a certificate based on such suppression. He cannot not claim ignorance. He cannot claim innocence and he cannot seek indulgence from this Court.
After perusing the certificate, the Court said that it had been issued because there was no property for the family and that there was nobody working in any government department, therefore, the family was in indigent circumstances, which necessitated the Tahsildar to issue such an indigent certificate. The certificate was based on false information since petitioner’s mother was working in the Government department and earning salary of Rs.11,298/-. At that time, at least, he could have disclosed that information to Tahsildar and could have stated that she had separated from the family and could have obtained a further certificate or endorsement on those lines. But the petitioner sought to put this certificate obtained through suppression to his advantage and obtained a job as Junior Assistant in Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine
The Court was surprised that the petitioner was going to the office knowing that the certificate was obtained on the basis of false information. This should have rankled him but still he continued to work and continued to draw salary. That salary is paid from and out of the public exchequer and the salary is part of the taxes paid by the public. Thus, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy at all.
Further, the Court said that the fact that the mother living separately does not come to the advantage of the petitioner since the bondage of mother and son subsisted. That can never be frustrated by any court of law. The mother can separate herself from the father of the petitioner but even then, merely living separately does not mean that the marital relationship has been severed. It still subsists and it still subsisted on the date of the death of his father. Thus, the Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order in either of the writ petitions.
[N. Mahendran v Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Writ Petition Nos. 34586 of 2016 & 11253 of 2014, Order dated 04-08-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Advocate K. Sathish Kumar
For Respondents: Government Advocate T.K. Saravanan
