IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36768 of 2007(B)
1. THE SPACE CENTRE EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR(GENERAL) OF
4. THE UNIT INSPECTOR (PATTOM) AND
5. JALAJA PRATHAP, 'SHIVAPOOJA',
For Petitioner :SRI.S.JAMES VINCENT
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :21/07/2008
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO.36768 OF 2007-B
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2008.
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel appearing for the parties on either side
have been heard quite in extenso on the basis of the pleadings and
materials. Having regard to the fact that the fifth respondent’s
request for compassionate appointment for her son is referable to
the unfortunate matters relating to the health of her husband before
he died and the fact that the petitioner herself is suffering from
cancer, I deem it appropriate that the parties find the way out to
meet the situation. The learned counsel on either side have,
therefore, discussed the matter among themselves and have
graciously stated before this Court that the averments in
Paragraph-15 of the reply affidavit dated 4th June, 2008 filed by
the writ petitioner could be recorded and the matter be disposed
of in terms thereof. Paragraph-15 of the reply affidavit reads as
follows:
“15. The averments in paragraph 9 are
not fully correct. The averment that after the
amalgamation under Ext.P1 order, not less thanWPC.NO.36768/07 .
2
10 vacancies have arisen in the Society
consequent on retirement/death of various
employees. On the date of Ext.P1, 18
employees were in excess. The One Man
Commission in Ext.P4 Report stated that the
staff-strength required for running the Society is
only 44, whereas the number of employees on
that date was 62. I submit that the relevant
date for considering the number of employees is
not that of Ext.P1, but of Ext.P4 Report, namely
30.12.1997, after which only 14 employees have
retired/died, whereas Ext.P4 Report shows that
18 employees are in excess, that is to say, still
there are four employees in excess, whose
salary is being paid by the Society gratuitously.
The One Man Commission in Ext.P4 Report has
recommended that no fresh appointment shall
be made until after 2010 and that too, only
after satisfying the demand of the 1st applicant
for compassionate appointment, and the 5th
respondent is only Number 2 in the list for
compassionate appointment. Therefore, no relief
can be given to the 5th respondent at this point
of time, and her grievance would arise for
consideration only after 2010, as stated above.”
2. In the light of what is aforesaid, there is no reason to assume
that the petitioner would not give appointment to the son of the
fifth respondent in turn No.2 in the list of persons awaiting
compassionate appointment. With that position being cleared, it is
directed that such appointments shall be effected immediately on
the occurrence of the vacancy that can be so earmarked. Any
statutory orders including Exts.P11, P14 and P20 germinated on the
WPC.NO.36768/07 .
3
sole ground of non-compliance of the directions of the statutory
authorities to make the appointment, shall stand quashed. In view
of the directions issued herein, it is further directed that any
amount outstanding to the fifth respondent, ie., an amount of
Rs.13,027/= as stated in Paragraph 10 of the reply affidavit,
shall be released to her within a period of three weeks from now.
Ordered accordingly.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
cl
WPC.NO.36768/07 .
4