IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 1129 of 2010(S)
1. MRS.CHANDINI SAM,WIFE OF LATE DR.VINU.V,
... Petitioner
2. MAHIMA.V.C(MINOR),D/O.LATE DR.VINU.V,
3. MARIA(MINOR),D/O.LATE DR.VINU.V,
Vs
1. SRI.MANOJ JOSHI.I.A.S, AGE AND FATHER'S
... Respondent
2. DR.JEEVAN,AGE AND FATHER'S NAME
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR (RAVIPURAM)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :08/11/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
Cont.Case (C) NO. 1129 OF 2010 (S)
=========================
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
First petitioner is the wife and the second and third
petitioners are the children of late Dr.Vinu.V. Dr.Vinu had a
premature death. An enquiry was conducted by the Deputy
Director of Health Services and report dated 18/8/07
recommending compensation for the death while in service was
submitted. However, the claim for compensation was rejected on
the ground that the same was not admissible as per the rules.
2. This order was challenged in WP(C) No.21487/08 and
the writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 20th of
October, 2009 setting aside the order on the ground that
Government should do the needful and that, in the circumstances,
absence of Rule by itself, cannot be a reason for rejecting the
claim. The matter was ordered to be reconsidered.
3. Accordingly, the Government reconsidered the matter
and issued Annexure B order dated 4/6/2010. Para 4 to 6 being
relevant, reads as under:-
4. The Hon’ble High Court, while disposing of the WP
(C), vide its judgment read as 3rd paper above, set aside
COC No. 1129/10
:2 :
Ext.P4, and directed the 1st respondent to reconsider
the claim of the petitioners for compensation for the
untimely death of Dr.Vinu.V. The court also ordered
that the matter shall be reconsidered and orders in that
behalf shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at
any rate, within two months of production of a copy of
the judgment. Government represented by the
Secretary (Health) is the first respondent in the case.
5. Government have examined the case in detail
with all connected rules and documents, including the
report of the Deputy District Medical Officer (H)
Ernakulam who conducted an enquiry into the death of
Dr.Vinu.V. The wife of the deceased is working and the
children are minor. All other reliefs including eligible
financial assistance due to a deceased Government
employee has been extended to the family and one
among his minor children will become eligible for
employment assistance under Compassionate
Employment Scheme when they attains eighteen years
of age.
6. The enquiry officer has reported that the multi
organ failure was probably the end result of some sort
of infection, the cause of which could not be revealed
by the tests available at that time in our state.
However, it has not been established that the death of
Dr.Vinu was due to disease he acquired from the
patients while on duty. Government cannot grant
compensation in such cases and order that the request
for financial compensation/grant of house site, by the
petitioners is rejected.
It is complaining that Annexure B order discloses disobedience of
the directions in the judgment, this contempt petition has been
filed.
4. 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The efforts
which he took in compliance with the judgment are reflected in
COC No. 1129/10
:3 :
para 2 of the counter affidavit, the relevant portion of which
reads as under:-
There is no provision or rule to provide compensation as
financial benefit against death of Government
employees. But the scheme under Compassionate
Employment Scheme is the benefit allowable to the
family of the employee who died in harness. In addition
to this a higher rate of pension upto the period till
retirement of the employee, had he continued in service
is also allowable as per rules. It is submitted that there
is no other provision for compensation other than the
same explained above to the family of the employees
who die in harness. In the circumstances, the request of
the petitioners for financial compensation has been
examined and a decision has been arrived at a higher
level to reject the claim since there is no provision to
allow the same. The orders thus arrived was issued as
the Government Order in Annexure B. It is submitted
that this respondent has taken all efforts to re-examine
the case as directed by this Hon’ble court in its true spirit
and circulated the file to the Chief Minister for taking
orders. From this, it may kindly be noted that there has
not been any laxity on the part of this respondent in
complying the direction of this Hon’ble Court and the
orders issued in Annexure B is within the rules and
provisions available in the matter and also after taking
orders at higher level.
5. Thus it is obvious that, it is not a case where the 1st
respondent rejected the claim without adverting to the directions
in the judgment. Further, the financial position of the family, the
employment status of his wife, pension that is paid etc., were also
duly adverted to. That apart, before the order was passed, the file
was even circulated to the Chief Minister.
COC No. 1129/10
:4 :
In such circumstances, I am not persuaded to think that this
is a case where there is wilful disobedience of the directions in the
judgment. On the other hand, if at all the petitioners are
aggrieved, they will have to work out their remedies against
Annexure B order. In that view, I close the contempt petition.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp