{"id":93582,"date":"2009-02-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valsala-kumari-vs-commandant-on-13-february-2009"},"modified":"2017-09-12T21:00:02","modified_gmt":"2017-09-12T15:30:02","slug":"valsala-kumari-vs-commandant-on-13-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valsala-kumari-vs-commandant-on-13-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Valsala Kumari vs Commandant on 13 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Valsala Kumari vs Commandant on 13 February, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP.No. 38809 of 2001(T)\n\n\n\n1. VALSALA KUMARI\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. COMMANDANT\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON\n\n Dated :13\/02\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                                                                                          (C.R.)\n                 P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.\n              ........................................................................\n                          O.P. No. 38809 OF 2001 &\n                         W.P.(C) No. 12706 OF 2004.\n              .........................................................................\n                    Dated this the 13th February, 2009\n\n                                  J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      The petitioner in both these petitions are one and the same.<\/p>\n
Sustainability of Ext.P13 order passed by the first respondent<\/p>\n
rejecting the claim of the petitioner seeking the benefit of<\/p>\n
compassionate employment under Ext.P2 State scheme is the<\/p>\n
subject matter involved in W.P.(C)No. 12706 of 2004; whereas<\/p>\n
the Original Petition            filed much earlier pertains to different<\/p>\n
reliefs; viz (i)     compassionate appointment under respondent<\/p>\n
Nos. 1 to 3 ; (ii) disbursement of monetary benefits allegedly due<\/p>\n
in respect of the military service rendered by the deceased<\/p>\n
husband of the petitioner and (iii) in respect of the claim put<\/p>\n
forth against the Railways for damages when the deceased<\/p>\n
husband, while on duty was run over by the train when it was<\/p>\n
being shunted in the premises of the railway station.<\/p>\n
      2. With regard to the reliefs prayed for in the earlier case<\/p>\n
(O.P.38809 of 2001), a detailed counter affidavit has been filed<\/p>\n
by the respondents asserting that the request for compassionate<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 38809 OF 2001 &
\nW.P.(C) No. 12706 OF 2004.\n<\/p>\n
                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
appointment preferred by the petitioner was duly considered, but<\/p>\n
no favourable orders could be passed as no vacancy had arisen<\/p>\n
as allocable to the petitioner on the basis of her turn and the<\/p>\n
quota earmarked for giving such employment assistance of<\/p>\n
compassionate appointment . It is pointed out by the learned<\/p>\n
Central Government          counsel for the respondents in the said<\/p>\n
case, with reference to Ext. R1(b) produced along with the<\/p>\n
counter     affidavit,    that the application   for   compassionate<\/p>\n
appointment can be kept pending only for one year and if the<\/p>\n
turn has not arisen in the meanwhile, it cannot be considered<\/p>\n
any further.\n<\/p>\n
      3. The learned Central Government Counsel further pointed<\/p>\n
out that the question of compassionate appointment can be<\/p>\n
considered and the benefit can be extended only in accordance<\/p>\n
with the scheme and that there is absolutely no violation of any<\/p>\n
of the provisions in         the scheme     in respect of the quota<\/p>\n
earmarked or otherwise;         particularly when no such challenge<\/p>\n
has been raised in O.P. No. 38809 of 2001.       It is also brought to<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 38809 OF 2001 &
\nW.P.(C) No. 12706 OF 2004.\n<\/p>\n
                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
the notice of this Court that the Apex Court vide the decision in<\/p>\n
Himachal Road Transport Corporation vs. Dinesh Kumar<\/a><\/p>\n
[(1996) 4 SCC 560] , has held that the benefit of<\/p>\n
compassionate appointment cannot be extended by directing the<\/p>\n
Government\/Department to create supernumerary vacancies<\/p>\n
(Paragraph 10). The law has been reiterated by the Apex Court<\/p>\n
in the subsequent decision in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. vs.<\/p>\n
A. Radhika Thirumalai<\/a> [1996) 6 SCC 394] as well.              This<\/p>\n
being the position and since the reason for rejection of the<\/p>\n
application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment by<\/p>\n
the respondents         in O.P.No. 38809 of 2001   has not been<\/p>\n
assailed, absolutely no relief can be extended to the petitioner in<\/p>\n
this regard.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    With regard to the second prayer raised in the said<\/p>\n
Original Petition, a detailed statement has been filed by<\/p>\n
respondent Nos. 1 to 4 pursuant to the interim order passed by<\/p>\n
this court on 25.07.2007 wherein it has been stated in black and<\/p>\n
white terms showing the break-up figures of all the benefits<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 38809 OF 2001 &
\nW.P.(C) No. 12706 OF 2004.\n<\/p>\n
                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
payable to the petitioner on the death of her husband.         The<\/p>\n
amounts released to her under different heads include Ex-Gratia<\/p>\n
payment of Rs.5 lakhs, Army Group Insurance Fund Death<\/p>\n
Benefit of Rs,       3.75 lakhs and such other amounts, besides<\/p>\n
sanctioning and granting of family pension.     It is asserted that<\/p>\n
no further amount is due from the respondents in this regard.<\/p>\n
Obviously no reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner<\/p>\n
rebutting the statement made by the respondents. Hence the<\/p>\n
second prayer in the Original Petition does not      desrve to be<\/p>\n
considered any further.\n<\/p>\n
      5. With regard to the third prayer, claiming damages from<\/p>\n
the Railways, it is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for the Railways that the death of the husband of the petitioner<\/p>\n
actually occurred when he was hit by loose shunting boggies at<\/p>\n
Merta Road Railway Station in Rajasthan.      It is stated that on<\/p>\n
10. 09.1998, when the husband of the petitioner was recklessly<\/p>\n
crossing the railway track, a train hit him and he sustained<\/p>\n
multiple crush injuries on both legs which led to his death on the<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 38809 OF 2001 &
\nW.P.(C) No. 12706 OF 2004.\n<\/p>\n
                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
same date. It is further stated that the said incident does not<\/p>\n
come within           the meaning of        “untoward incident” as<\/p>\n
contemplated under section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 so<\/p>\n
as to make the petitioner eligible for compensation from the<\/p>\n
Railways. It is also submitted that the deceased was never a<\/p>\n
passenger at the relevant time and hence there is absolutely no<\/p>\n
duty or liability for the Railways to satisfy the claim put forth in<\/p>\n
this regard.       Learned counsel further points out that       the<\/p>\n
petitioner, if at all she is aggrieved, it is for her to approach the<\/p>\n
appropriate forum-the Railway Claims Tribunal constituted under<\/p>\n
the Railways Act, 1989 where the matter has to be adjudicated<\/p>\n
on the basis of the evidence to be adduced and that the<\/p>\n
petitioner cannot have        any short cut dispensing with the<\/p>\n
jurisdiction entrusted with the Tribunal by invoking the<\/p>\n
discretionary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
      6. Obviously the third relief sought for by the petitioner in<\/p>\n
the Original Petition No. 38809 of 2001 is rather a hypothetical<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 38809 OF 2001 &
\nW.P.(C) No. 12706 OF 2004.\n<\/p>\n
                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
one seeking for a direction to pay compensation to the extent it<\/p>\n
would have been         payable ” had she approached the Railway<\/p>\n
Claims Tribunal”. As she has not filed         any claim before the<\/p>\n
Tribunal, this court will not be justified in venturing into any such<\/p>\n
exploratory exercise.        The remedy of the petitioner in this<\/p>\n
regard, if otherwise justifiable, lay elsewhere.<\/p>\n
      7. Coming to Writ Petition No. 12706 of 2004, the reliefs<\/p>\n
prayed for by the petitioner are            mostly confined to the<\/p>\n
respondents 1 to 3, i.e., the State Government and authorities<\/p>\n
thereunder. It appears from the materials brought on record that<\/p>\n
the petitioner,       having failed to obtain favourable reliefs in<\/p>\n
respect to the benefit of compassionate appointment under the<\/p>\n
respondents       in   O.P.No.  38809   of   2001   (Defence\/Army),<\/p>\n
approached the State Government and authorities there under<\/p>\n
seeking for the benefit under Ext.P2 State            scheme.    The<\/p>\n
application preferred by the petitioner in this regard was<\/p>\n
originally turned down by the concerned respondent vide Ext. P9<\/p>\n
dated 15.02.2000, which was subjected to challenge before this<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 38809 OF 2001 &
\nW.P.(C) No. 12706 OF 2004.\n<\/p>\n
                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
Court by filing O.P.NO. 11143 of 2000, which culminated in Ext.<\/p>\n
P12 judgment dated 19.12.2003.         This court found that the<\/p>\n
matter     required fresh consideration   by the respondents and<\/p>\n
accordingly the impugned orders, Exts. P9 and P11 were set<\/p>\n
aside and the concerned respondents were directed to reconsider<\/p>\n
the request of the petitioner and pass final orders within the<\/p>\n
specified time.      Pursuant to the said verdict, the matter was<\/p>\n
considered afresh by the Government and the application was<\/p>\n
rejected vide Ext. P13 stating that the death of the husband of<\/p>\n
the petitioner did not occur “in an operation area” as<\/p>\n
contemplated in Ext.P2 Scheme, which in turn has been<\/p>\n
subjected to challenge in the present Writ Petition.<\/p>\n
      8. Separate counter affidavits have been filed from the part<\/p>\n
of the respondents 1 and 2. The action pursued by respondent<\/p>\n
Nos.4 and 5, as submitted in the other Original petition, has been<\/p>\n
explained in the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.4 and<\/p>\n
5 filed in this case as well and it is pointed out that such action<\/p>\n
has not been subjected to challenge in W.P.(C) 12706 of 2004.<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 38809 OF 2001 &
\nW.P.(C) No. 12706 OF 2004.\n<\/p>\n
                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
That apart, it has also been pointed out in paragraph No.4 of the<\/p>\n
counter affidavit that the death of the husband of the petitioner<\/p>\n
was not in an ‘operation area’ as envisaged in the Scheme.<\/p>\n
      9.     Ext. P13     has been sought to be justified   by the<\/p>\n
respondents 1 and 2 specifically referring to the relevant clauses<\/p>\n
in Ext. P2 scheme. The petitioner has filed reply affidavit wherein<\/p>\n
it has been stated that the concept of death in an ‘operation<\/p>\n
area’ need not be understood as death in operation in war in the<\/p>\n
operation area and that it should be given a wider meaning. The<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner referring to        Maxwel on<\/p>\n
Interpretation points out that a beneficial construction shall be<\/p>\n
adopted in this case.\n<\/p>\n
      10. Obviously, the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition are<\/p>\n
based on Ext. P2 scheme formulated           and notified by the<\/p>\n
Government of Kerala. The eligibility thereunder is specified in<\/p>\n
Clause (3), which is extracted below;\n<\/p>\n
             3. The concession under this scheme shall be<\/p>\n
             applicable to one dependent of the following<\/p>\n
             categories of defence\/GREF\/BSF personnel:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
O.P. No. 38809 OF 2001 &
\nW.P.(C) No. 12706 OF 2004.\n<\/p>\n
                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
             (i) Killed\/Missing\/Disabled, in action<\/p>\n
             (ii)  Killed\/disabled in operation areas due to<\/p>\n
             high altitude or adverse climatic conditions or<\/p>\n
             due to explosion of mines, bobytraps, vehicle<\/p>\n
             accidents etc.<\/p>\n
             (iii)     Death\/disability\/missing  in operation<\/p>\n
             areas, due to accidents during peace time<\/p>\n
             conditions circumstances of which are identical<\/p>\n
             to activities during operation engagements.<\/p>\n
             The operation area will be as decided by the<\/p>\n
             Union     Government     from    time  to  time.\n<\/p>\n
             Encounters     in   such   circumstances   when<\/p>\n
             Defence\/GREF\/BSF personnel are called in to<\/p>\n
             assist Civil power may also be included for<\/p>\n
             giving     employment    assistance   under   the<\/p>\n
             scheme.\n<\/p>\n
             Note:     In the case of the dependent of the<\/p>\n
             disabled personnel, the dependent of the ex-<\/p>\n
             servicemen who had sustained injury\/disability<\/p>\n
             over 50 per cent is only eligible for the benefit<\/p>\n
             of the scheme. ”\n<\/p>\n
Clause      3(iii)  specifically states   that     ‘operation area’<\/p>\n
contemplated therein will be with reference to the area as<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 38809 OF 2001 &
\nW.P.(C) No. 12706 OF 2004.\n<\/p>\n
                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
decided by the Union Government from time to time.             The<\/p>\n
requirement and intent of Ext. P2 scheme cannot be widened or<\/p>\n
interpreted in a different manner as the court would like it to be,<\/p>\n
but has to be considered as provided.      Since the provision is<\/p>\n
unambiguous, the term ‘operation area’ has to be understood as<\/p>\n
decided by the Central Government and confining the benefit<\/p>\n
only to the particular class or group of people who come within<\/p>\n
the four corners of the scheme as specified and notified.     This<\/p>\n
being the position, the only question to be considered is whether<\/p>\n
the place where the death of the husband of the petitioner took<\/p>\n
place was an ‘operation area’ or not.   The petitioner has also a<\/p>\n
case as raised in paragraph No.4 of the reply affidavit that the<\/p>\n
deceased husband of the petitioner was proceeding to         Army<\/p>\n
Headquarters at New Delhi as part of his official duties and he<\/p>\n
was serving 75 Armoured Regiment being posted at Jodhpur and<\/p>\n
further that Jodhpur was very much an ‘operation area’<\/p>\n
irrespective of the fact whether    Merta Road Junction was an<\/p>\n
‘operation area’ or not.\n<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 38809 OF 2001 &
\nW.P.(C) No. 12706 OF 2004.\n<\/p>\n
                                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
      11. In view of the rival contentions and assertions from<\/p>\n
both the sides, this court vide interim order dated 25.07.2007<\/p>\n
had directed the respondents to file an affidavit as to the<\/p>\n
classification of the concerned area so as to make it clear<\/p>\n
whether the death actually occurred in an ‘operation area’ or not.<\/p>\n
Pursuant to the said direction, the learned Central Government<\/p>\n
Counsel       for respondents 4 and 5 , on the basis of the<\/p>\n
instructions received      has filed an affidavit dated 09.10.2007<\/p>\n
asserting that neither Jodhpur nor New Delhi has been classified<\/p>\n
as an ‘operation area’.\n<\/p>\n
      12.      It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner that in the affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5,<\/p>\n
they have not produced any notification as to the declaration of<\/p>\n
the area as not an ‘operation area’. This court does not find any<\/p>\n
merit in the said contention; particularly in view of the fact that it<\/p>\n
is a negative aspect, which cannot be proved by adducing any<\/p>\n
positive evidence. On the other hand, when an affidavit has<\/p>\n
been filed asserting that the concerned area was not an<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 38809 OF 2001 &
\nW.P.(C) No. 12706 OF 2004.\n<\/p>\n
                                   12<\/span><\/p>\n
‘operation area’, it is for the petitioner to rebut the said averment<\/p>\n
by producing the relevant notification, if any, categorising the<\/p>\n
concerned area as an ‘operation area’.         Above all, it is to be<\/p>\n
noted that the petitioner is not aggrieved with any of the<\/p>\n
stipulations contained in Ext.P2 scheme confining the benefit to<\/p>\n
such class of persons whose death occurred in such ‘operation<\/p>\n
area’ as specified by the Central Government.            Since Ext.P2<\/p>\n
scheme has not been subjected to challenge,           nothing further<\/p>\n
requires to be considered in this regard and the matter is to be<\/p>\n
confined to the facts and circumstances, as now available before<\/p>\n
the court.\n<\/p>\n
      In the above circumstances, this court does not find any<\/p>\n
tenable ground to         grant the reliefs prayed for and both the<\/p>\n
Original Petition and the Writ Petition are dismissed accordingly.<\/p>\n
                                    P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
\n                                              JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
lk<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 38809 OF 2001 &
\nW.P.(C) No. 12706 OF 2004.\n<\/p>\n
                              13<\/span><\/p>\n
                                   P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,J.\n<\/p>\n
                                ……………………………………………<\/p>\n
                                       O.P.No. 38809 OF 2001.\n<\/p>\n
                               ……………………………………………
\n                                Dated this the 13th February,2009<\/p>\n
                                              J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Valsala Kumari vs Commandant on 13 February, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP.No. 38809 of 2001(T) 1. VALSALA KUMARI … Petitioner Vs 1. COMMANDANT … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON Dated :13\/02\/2009 O R D E R (C.R.) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-93582","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nValsala Kumari vs Commandant on 13 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valsala-kumari-vs-commandant-on-13-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Valsala Kumari vs Commandant on 13 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valsala-kumari-vs-commandant-on-13-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-12T15:30:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/valsala-kumari-vs-commandant-on-13-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/valsala-kumari-vs-commandant-on-13-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Valsala Kumari vs Commandant on 13 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-12T15:30:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/valsala-kumari-vs-commandant-on-13-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2178,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/valsala-kumari-vs-commandant-on-13-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/valsala-kumari-vs-commandant-on-13-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/valsala-kumari-vs-commandant-on-13-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Valsala Kumari vs Commandant on 13 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-12T15:30:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/valsala-kumari-vs-commandant-on-13-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/valsala-kumari-vs-commandant-on-13-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/valsala-kumari-vs-commandant-on-13-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Valsala Kumari vs Commandant on 13 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Valsala Kumari vs Commandant on 13 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valsala-kumari-vs-commandant-on-13-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Valsala Kumari vs Commandant on 13 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valsala-kumari-vs-commandant-on-13-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-12T15:30:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valsala-kumari-vs-commandant-on-13-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valsala-kumari-vs-commandant-on-13-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Valsala Kumari vs Commandant on 13 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-12T15:30:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valsala-kumari-vs-commandant-on-13-february-2009"},"wordCount":2178,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valsala-kumari-vs-commandant-on-13-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valsala-kumari-vs-commandant-on-13-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valsala-kumari-vs-commandant-on-13-february-2009","name":"Valsala Kumari vs Commandant on 13 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-12T15:30:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valsala-kumari-vs-commandant-on-13-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valsala-kumari-vs-commandant-on-13-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valsala-kumari-vs-commandant-on-13-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Valsala Kumari vs Commandant on 13 February, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93582","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=93582"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93582\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93582"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93582"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93582"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}