IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5174 of 2009(N)
1. JAFEEK KHAN M, S/O.MOHAMMED SALIH
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES
3. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND
For Respondent :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :03/03/2009
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.5174 of 2009
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of the application
for appointment under the Dying in harness scheme. His mother was
in the service of the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited,
which is a Kerala Government undertaking. While she was working
as Special Grade Assistant in the Charummood Brach of the second
respondent, she died in harness on 12.3.2008.
2. It is pointed out that petitioner has one sister Smt.Jasmin N.,
who has already married and residing along with her husband. The
petitioner has passed S.S.L.C Examination and completed Vocational
Higher Secondary course in the School, at Chunakkara. Thereafter,
he had undergone Diploma Course in Automobile Engineering at
N.I.Polytechnic, Thakkala, Nagarcoil. His father is a pensioner and
he retired from service as Sub Inspector of Police. It is also pointed
out that he was not having any employment and was fully depending
upon his mother, as the monthly pension of his father was not even
adequate to meet the bare needs of the family members. In the above
circumstances, it was decided that the petitioner should marry a girl,
who would be able to attend the family needs and also to render able
support and assistance to his ailing mother. Accordingly, he married
one Ms.Sheena.
WPC/5174 OF 2009
2
3.The petitioner approached respondents 2 and 3 for employment
assistance under the dying in harness scheme. Ext.P2 is the
communication issued by the third respondent to his father directing
him to submit application in the prescribed form along with the
requisite documents. Ext.P3 is a scheme for compassionate
employment of dependents of Government servants who die in harness
which was modified by first respondent as per the direction issued by
this Hon’ble Court in various judgments including judgment in OP
No.10287 of 2005. The petitioner’s application stands rejected as per
Ext.P6, on the reason that a married son is not eligible. For arriving at
the said conclusion they relied upon another order passed by the
Government as per Ext.P7 in respect of different applicant. The main
reason stated therein is that married son is not dependant on his
parents. It is accordingly held that the married son/married daughter
will not come in the scheme itself.
4. The petitioner contends in the light of Exts.P4 and P5
Government letters issued in the matter, a married son/married
daughter is also be considered for the benefit of compassionate
employment scheme. The above issue have been considered in the
recent judgment of this Court in Ashkarali v. State of Kerala (2009
(1) KLT) SN 17 . It is held that irrespective of marriage, the son or
daughter of the deceased employee may have been dependent on the
WPC/5174 OF 2009
3
deceased employee, and that, while marriage may change the status of
the son/daughter, his or her status as a dependent son or dependent
daughter may continue. The mere fact that the son/daughter got
married by itself will not indicate that he/she is not eligible for
appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme. The
reasons stated in Ext.P7, cannot be supported.
5. In the light of Exts.P4 and P5 and in the light of the dictum laid
down in Ashkarali v. State of Kerala (2009 (1) KLT) SN 17 the
view taken in Ext.P6 cannot be accepted as the correct one. Therefore
Ext.P6 is quashed. The application will have to be considered in
accordance with the scheme.
The writ petition is allowed as above and appropriate orders by
respondents 2 and 3 will be passed within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
JUDGE