IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21050 of 2004(E)
1. JAYASREE W/O.EX-SAPPER UNNIKRISHNAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR FOF EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES,
3. THE SENIOR RECORD OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY
For Respondent :SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, ADDL.CGSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :21/11/2008
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 21050 of 2004
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 21st November, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the wife of a former soldier in Indian Army, who
was a member of the Indian Peace Keeping Force sent to Sri Lanka.
According to the petitioner, because of the stress and strain of of
military service, especially in Sri Lanka, her husband lost his mental
balance, as a result of which after a stint of hospitalisation in the
military hospital, he was finally invalided out of military service. The
petitioner submits that in view of the same, the petitioner is entitled
to compassionate appointment. The contention of the petitioner is
that the Supreme Court has in the decision of Sivamurthy v. State of
Andhra Pradesh, 2008(3) KLT 911 (SC) upheld the right of
dependents of Government servants who lost their employment on
account of medical invalidation.
2. In answer to the same, the Central Government counsel, with
the help of a counter affidavit, which is not on record, a copy of which
has been handed over to me for perusal, submits that as per the
Ministry of India UO Note No. 1223/US(Emp)/D(Res) dated 16th June,
1987, only dependents of service personnel who was invalided with
and over 50% disability attributable to military service are eligible for
employment assistance on compassionate grounds. According to the
respondents, the petitioner’s husband was invalided out of service
with 20% disability and therefore the petitioner is not eligible for
compassionate employment. It is further submitted that only 5%
vacancies are set apart for this purpose, that too, only for dependents
of those individuals who died in harness/killed in action and disabled
soldier.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. As far as the decision cited by the petitioner is concerned, I
do not think that, that can be applied in the petitioner’s case. That is
W.P.C. No. 21050/04. -: 2 :-
a case where the Supreme Court upheld a compassionate employment
scheme wherein dependents of medically invalided Government
servants were given the benefit of compassionate employment. Here,
the validity of such a scheme is not in question. The only question is
whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate employment
because of the invalidation from military service of her husband with
20% medical disability. The petitioner has not produced any material
which would enable the petitioner to claim such an employment. On
the other hand, the respondents would contend that as per the
scheme available, only dependants of persons who are invalided out of
service with 50% or more disability is eligible for compassionate
employment. The petitioner could not, with any material, controvert
the said contention. She also does not dispute the fact that her
husband was invalided out of military service with only 20% disability.
That being so, the petitioner has not made out a case for eligibility for
compassionate employment. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/