IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7531 of 2009(J)
1. K. CHANDRAVATHY,
... Petitioner
2. ANILKUMAR.K,
3. ANJALI SETHUMADHAVAN,
Vs
1. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,
... Respondent
2. THE PROFESSOR AND HEAD,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :26/03/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-----------------------------
W.P(C) No.7531 of 2009-J
------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Heard Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillay, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Renjith Thampan, the learned
standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioners are the wife and children of late
N.Sethumadhavan, who was a labourer in the Live Stock Farm of the
Kerala Agricultural University at Mannuthy. The service of late
M.Sethumadhavan was terminated by Ext.P10 order dated
15.1.1993 for unauthorized absence. Ext.P10 has become final.
More than five years thereafter he passed away on 29.11.1998. In
this writ petition, the petitioners collaterally challenge Ext.P10 and
seek employment as the dependents of late N.Sethumadhavan. The
petitioners contend that the termination of service of late
N.Sethumadhavan by Ext.P10 order dated 15.1.1993 is void and
therefore he should be deemed to have been in service when he
passed away on 29.11.1998. On that basis the petitioners contend
that as the dependents of late N.Sethumadhavan they are entitled
to all service benefits including appointment under the
W.P(C) No.7531 of 2009-J 2
compassionate employment scheme.
3. Ext.P10 order of termination was passed on 15.1.1993,
Late N.Sethumadhavan did not challenge the order. He passed
away long thereafter on 29.11.1998. He was not in service when he
passed away on 29.11.1998 and therefore it cannot be said that he
died while in service. The petitioners challenge Ext.P10 collaterally
for the purpose of seeking employment assistance under the
scheme for compassionate employment. Even if Ext.P10 order was
wrongly passed, it was passed at a time when late
N.Sethumadhavan was in service. He did not challenge it till his
death. He died only on 29.11.1998. Nearly a decade later, the
petitioners are attempting to challenge it on the ground that the
officer who issued Ext.P10 was not competent to terminate the
service of late N.Sethumadhavan. In my opinion petitioners cannot
not challenge Ext.P10 at this distance of time. I am therefore not
persuaded to agree with the petitioners that as the legal heirs of
late N.Sethumadhavan, they are entitled to claim appointment
under compassionate employment scheme. The writ petition fails
and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN
JUDGE
ab //True Copy//
PA to Judge