JUDGMENT
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether a married
son of a person who died in harness would get the benefit of Rule 51B Chapter XIV-A
of the Kerala Education Rules in the case of teaching staff and Under Rule 9A of
Chapter XXIV-A of K.E.R. in the case of non-teaching staff. Applicant’s father was
a Peon in the St. Joseph’s High School who died on 20.12.1996 in harness. The
Manager of the School immediately promoted one P.Krishnan who was a Menial as
Peon on 2.1.1997 in that vacancy and the appointment was approved by the District
Education Officer. In the vacancy which arose on promotion of Krishnan the Manager
appointed Sr. Nirmala on 6.1.1997 as Menial. Approval was sought for to that
appointment as well. Petitioner then filed a complaint before the District Educational
Officer and filed O.P.4948/97, which was disposed of directing the District Educational Officer to dispose of the said representation.
2. District Educational Officer heard the applicant as well as the manager and
passed order dated 1.7.2000 and found that Manager has overlooked the right of the
applicant under Rule 9A of Chapter XXIV-A of K.E.R. A direction was issued to the
Manager to appoint the applicant as full time menial in the first vacancy which arose
after the date of his application. Aggrieved by the same the Writ Petition has been
preferred by the Manager.
3. Counsel appearing for the Manager submitted that the applicant has no legal
right to claim appointment under dying in harness scheme. Reference was made to
the Government Order G.O. (P) No. 7.95/P & ARD dated 30th March 1995 which
deals with liberalised scheme for compassionate employment of the dependants of
Government servant who die in harness. Counsel placing reliance on Clause 13 of the
scheme and submitted that married son or daughter is not included in the said clause
and consequently applicant is not entitled to get the benefit of the above mentioned
Government Order. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court in
Reni K. Abraham v. State of Kerala, 1999 (1) KLT 249.
4. Counsel appearing for the applicant on the other hand submitted that he has
got a statutory right under Rule 9-A of Chapter XXIV-A of KER read with G.O.(P) No.
7/95/P & ARD dated 30.3.1995 and G.O.MS. No. 15/97/G.Edn. dated 16.1.1997 to
get appointment under dying in harness scheme. Counsel submitted his father died as
a Peon on 20.12.1996 while in service. He was expecting that Manager would appoint
him to that vacancy. He submitted his application on 27-1.97 within a period of one
month from the death of his father. Overlooking his claim the Manager however,
appointed one Krishnan and Sr. nirmala in the vacancy of Krishanan. This according
to him, is illegal. Their appointments have not been approved and consequently he is
entitled to get appointment. The applicant submitted the application before the Manager
was well within time.
5. We have to examine the question raised in this case in the abovementioned
factual background. Rule 9-A of Chapter XXIV-A of KER cast an obligation on the Manager to give employment to a dependant of the non-teaching staff of an aided
school dying in harness. In this connection it is relevant to extract the said provision
for easy reference:
“9-A. The Manager shall give employment to a dependant of the non-teaching staff of an
aided school dying in harness. Government Orders relating to employment assistance to the
dependants of Government servants dying in harness shall, mutatis muntandis, apply in the
matter of such appointments.”
We have to read the abovementioned provision along with the liberalised scheme for
compassionate employment of the dependants of Government Servant who die in
harness under the Government Order GO(P)7/95/P & ARD dated 30th March 1995.
It is relevant to refer to Clause 13(a) which we extract below:
“13(a). Only one dependent will be given employment assistance under the scheme in the
event of the death of a Government Servant. Employment assistance shall be given to the widow/
widower, son, daughter, or sister in the said order of priority. Son and daughter shall
include adopted son and adopted daughter respectively and will rank after son/daughter. No
other dependent shall be eligible or given appointment under the scheme.”
Counsel for the management as we have already indicated submitted that the above
mentioned clause has excluded married daughter/son from the purview of Clause 13(a)
of the Scheme while the previous Government Order dated 23.12.92 specifically
included married daughter and son also. Consequently the manager is justified in not
entertaining the claim of the married daughter. Such a contention was however
accepted by a learned Judge of this Court in 1999 (1) KLT 249 and WA 287/99 and
WA 284/99 filed against the said judgment were dismissed. All the same we are of
the view a more reasonable approach is to consider the claim of married son and
daughter also. Provided they can show, in spite of the marriage, he/she was a dependent
on the deceased and could not tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the breadwinner of the family. The marriage may change the status of a person, but his or
her status as a dependent of the deceased may continue. We are of the view that the
mere fact that either daughter or son got married does not mean that he/she has lost
his claim for appointment under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV-A of K.E.R. as well as Rule 9A
of Chapter XXIV-A of KER read with Government Order dated 30.3.1995. The
object and purpose of Rule 51B of Chapter XIV-A as well as Rule 9A of Chapter XXIV-A of
K.E.R. is to give some assistance to the dependants of the deceased. Object of those
provisions as well as the liberalised scheme framed by the Government would be
defeated if the claim of a married daughter or son is rejected if they are otherwise
dependants on the deceased. In view of the above mentioned circumstance we hold
that married son or married daughter is also entitled to get benefit of Rule 51-B of
Chapter XIV-A as well as Rule 9A of Chapter XXIV-A of K.E.R. read with the liberalised
scheme.
6. We therefore find no merit in the Writ Appeal and direct the 1st appellant to give
effect to Ext. P3 order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment.