IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22985 of 2008(J)
1. M.RATHEESH, AGED 27 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, SMALL SCALE
3. DIRECTOR, SMALL ENTERPRENEUR PROMOTION
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JANARDHANAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :18/08/2008
O R D E R
P.N.Ravindran, J.
=====================
W.P(C).No.22985 of 2008
=====================
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner’s father was employed as Skilled Worker, Grade II in
the Small Entrepreneur Promotion and Training Institute, Thiruvalla. He
passed away while in service, on 3.9.2002. The petitioner was born on
17.4.1983. Long after his father passed away, the petitioner submitted
Ext.P1 application dated 1.2.2006 claiming appointment under the Dying
in Harness Scheme. That application was rejected by Ext.P2 letter dated
31.1.2006. Nearly 1 year and 10 months later, the petitioner submitted
Ext.P3 representation to the second respondent to reconsider the issue.
This Writ Petition was thereafter filed seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ and to
quash Exhibit P2 communication and for a direction to
respondents to give employment to the petitioner under
compassionate appointment.
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or another writ or
direction to the 2nd respondent herein to dispose of Ext.P3
representation within a time limit to be fixed by this
Hon’ble Court.”
2. Ext.P2 which is sought to be quashed is dated 31.1.2006. It
states that for non-availability of vacancies in Group C and Group D
posts, it is not possible to appoint the petitioner under the Dying in
WP(C) 22985/08 -: 2 :-
Harness Scheme. The petitioner’s father passed away on 3.9.2002. The
petitioner was a major when his father passed away. He did not apply for
appointment under the Dying in Harness Scheme till he submitted Ext.P2
application on 1.2.2006. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana –
(1994)4 S.C.C.138 the Apex Court has held that appointment under the
Dying in Harness Scheme is not a method for appointment and that it is
intended to give assistance to the family of the deceased employee. It
was held that the appointments under the said scheme cannot be made
after a long number of years. The Government of India had pursuant to
the decision of the Apex Court, issued an office memorandum stipulating
that applications for appointment under the Dying in Harness Scheme
will have to be submitted within one year of the death of the employee
and that the appointments will be confined to 5% of the vacancies in
Group C/D post. The petitioner did not apply for nearly 4 years after his
father passed away. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court
referred to above and the order passed by the Government of India, his
application was highly belated. It was rejected by Ext.P2 on the ground
that vacancies were not available to accommodate the petitioner. The
petitioner did not choose to challenge Ext.P2 in time. Instead, after
nearly one year and 10 months, he submitted Ext.P3 representation
seeking reconsideration of the matter. In my considered opinion, in the
light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v.
State of Haryana – (1994)4 S.C.C.138, the petitioner cannot seek or be
WP(C) 22985/08 -: 3 :-
granted appointment under the Dying in Harness Scheme. Further, the
petitioner did not choose to challenge Ext.P2 for quite a long time. On
that ground also, the Writ Petition fails.
For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit in the
Writ Petition. The Writ Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
P.N.Ravindran,
Judge.
ess 19/8