Preetha Shaji Kumar vs The Bhabha Atomic Research Centre on 30 June, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 7383 of 2009(P)


1. PREETHA SHAJI KUMAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :30/06/2010

 O R D E R
                         ANTONY DOMINIC, J
                            .......................
                          W.P.(C).7383/2009
                            .......................
                Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010

                               JUDGMENT

Petitioner submits that her husband Sri.Shajikumar was a

Scientific Officer under the 1st respondent. Shajikumar expired on

30.7.2006. There upon, the petitioner made an application for

employment on compassionate grounds. That was considered by

the Compassionate Appointment Committee of the 1st respondent

and rejection of the application was conveyed to the petitioner by

Ext.P1. Two reasons are stated for rejection of her application.

One is that the petitioner is in receipt of family pension of

Rs.6619/- + Dearness Relief as admissible and have received dues

of about Rs.3 Lakhs on the death of her husband. Other reason

stated is that the application for Compassionate Appointment was

made by the petitioner, after a lapse of 15 months.

2. From the counter affidavit it would appear that when her

husband was alive, relationship between the parties was not cordial

and they were living separately. In fact the deceased had filed a

petition for divorce in the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai, a copy of which is

W.P.(C).7383/09
2

Ext.R1(b) where serious allegations were made against the

petitioner. It is also stated that the deceased had made a

complaint to the Chief Security Officer of the Company, which also

discloses that he had filed a police complaint against the petitioner

for having threatened him. Irrespective of all that, a reading of

the counter affidavit would show that on the death of the

petitioner’s husband, a total amount of Rs.6,50,762/- was due to

be paid to the petitioner and that after recovery of the amount

due to BARC Co-operative Credit Society, a sum of Rs.4,32,012/-

was paid to the petitioner. It is also seen that she is receiving

family pension of Rs.10,975/- + Dearness Relief from time to

time which she is entitled to till 30.7.2016 and thereafter, she will

be eligible to get normal family pension of Rs.6,585/- + Dearness

Relief. It is contended that the Compassionate Appointment

Committee of the 1st respondent came to a conclusion that the

petitioner is not a person in distress and therefore, she was

ineligible for appointment on compassionate grounds.

3. Even if the pendency of the divorce application and the

W.P.(C).7383/09
3

complaint made by her husband against the petitioner are brushed

aside, fact remains that substantial amounts have been received by

the petitioner towards family pension and dearness relief.

Necessarily, therefore the conclusion arrived at by the

Compassionate Appointment Committee that the petitioner is not

a person in distress, cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary

warranting interference in a proceedings under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

Writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

ANTONY DOMINIC,
Judge

mrcs