IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA No. 49 of 2006() 1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, ... Petitioner 2. THE ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, Vs 1. SINDHU, AGED 33 YEARS, ... Respondent 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED For Petitioner :SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN For Respondent :SRI.P.S.NARAYANA RAJA The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.V.K.BALI The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN Dated :08/12/2006 O R D E R V.K. BALI, C.J. & S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------- W.A.No.49 of 2006 & C.M.Appln.No.82 of 2006 ------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of December, 2006 JUDGMENT
V.K.Bali,C.J.(Oral)
Delay condoned.
2. This writ appeal has been filed challenging the order
dated 29th August, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(C) No.23180 of 2005. Petitioner in the original lis and the
first respondent in the present writ appeal sought appointment
on compassionate grounds. It is the case of the petitioner that
her brother Sreekumaran Namboodiri who was an employee of
the Devaswom Board died in harness. Her application was
rejected by the competent authority vide order Ext.P2 dated
26.4.2005. It was stated in the order that the petitioner is
married and that being so she would not be entitled for
appointment on compassionate grounds because of the demise of
her brother under the Scheme. It is this order that was
challenged by the petitioner. Clause 6(5) of the Dying-in-
Harness Scheme reads as follows:
W.A.No.49/2006 2
“An unemployed married son or any
unemployed married daughter whose spouse is also
unemployed can also be considered for appointment
under these rules, provided the other dependents of
the deceased Devaswom employee are being looked
after by him/her.”
3. It is apparent from a reading of the clause aforesaid that
an unemployed married son or unemployed married daughter
whose spouse is also unemployed would be entitled for
consideration under the Scheme. Even though by virtue of clause
6 relied upon by the learned Single Judge she may be under the
category of eligible relations entitled to compassionate
appointment, but the case of the sister cannot be better than that
of son and daughter. It is conceded position that the husband of
the petitioner is an employee. That being so, petitioner is not
entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. That apart,
the category of persons mentioned in the Scheme at the most
would be entitled for consideration for appointment on
compassionate grounds. The mere fact that they are entitled
would not automatically mean that they may necessarily be
employed. It is too well settled that compassionate appointment
is to be given to tide over the immediate crisis. Surely, the
W.A.No.49/2006 3
petitioner whose spouse being an employed person would not be
in immediate crisis. We find considerable merit in the appeal
preferred by the appellants and it is allowed. Consequently, the
order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ
petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. There will be no
order as to costs.
V.K. BALI,
CHIEF JUSTICE.
S.SIRI JAGAN,
JUDGE.
vns