IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19641 of 2010(E)
1. MOHAMMED NOUSHAD.K,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.KHALID
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :09/07/2010
O R D E R
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 19641 OF 2010
--------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The father of the petitioner died-in-harness on 23.3.2005 while
working as Full-time junior language Arabic Teacher in Government
U.P.School, Neerchal. After obtaining consent from the legal heirs
the petitioner, who is the son of the deceased, submitted an
application for getting appointment under the dying-in-harness
scheme. The said application submitted by the petitioner was
rejected as per Ext.P1 on the ground that the petitioner is married.
This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P1 and also with a
further prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the
first respondent to reconsider the application submitted by the
petitioner on 9.5.2005 for employment assistance under the
Compassionate Employment Scheme and pass orders thereon.
The main contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P1 is unsustainable
in the light of the decisions of this Court reported in Rev.Mother,
Delphine Mary v. State of Kerala (2002 (1) KLT 137) and
St.Ignatious High School v. State of Kerala (2005 (3) KLT 1000).
The learned Government Pleader has also brought to my attention
WPC No.19641/2010
2
that subsequently the Government themselves included the category
of married son and daughter among eligible categories for
appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. In the light of the
aforesaid decisions and also the subsequent development, I am of
the view that Ext.P1 requires reconsideration.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
the first respondent to consider the application dated 9.5.2005
submitted by the petitioner for employment assistance under the
Compassionate Employment Scheme afresh expeditiously, at any
rate, within a period of three month from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment. To enable the first respondent to reconsider the
same, Ext.P1 is set aside. It is made clear that this Court has not
made any observation with respect to the merits of the contentions
raised by the petitioner for appointment under the dying-in-harness
scheme.
C.T.RAVIKUMAR
(JUDGE)
vps
WPC No.19641/2010
3
WPC No.19641/2010
4