PREETHA V S Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the eldest daughter of late Sri. N. Velayudhan Pillai, who died while working as an Overseer in the Kerala State Electricity Board. The legal heirs of late Sri. Velayudhan Pillai came to an understanding as to how the terminal benefits of Sri. Velayudhan Pillai and right for compassionate employment should be shared among them. Therefore, the legal heirs jointly filed an application before the Tahsildar for a certificate showing the legal heirship in terms of the agreement reached among the legal heirs, pursuant to which Ext.P1 legal heirship certificate was issued, as per which the right for compassionate employment was given to the eighth respondent herein, one of the daughters of Sri. Velayudhan Pillai. At that time, the petitioner was satisfied with the share in the gratuity amount and agreed for giving the right for employment to the eighth respondent. The petitioner's complaint in this writ petition is that the petitioner was not given her share of the gratuity amount as per Ext.P1 certificate. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application for appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme. The same was rejected relying on Ext.P1 certificate, on the ground that the legal heirs had agreed that the right to get compassionate employment should go to the eighth respondent. The petitioner now submits that Ext.P1 certificate is illegal and without jurisdiction and therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied employment on the basis of Ext.P1.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent denying the claim of the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P1 itself. The fourth respondent has also filed a counter affidavit.

(3.) I have considered the rival contentions in detail. It is not disputed before me that the petitioner also jointly applied with the other legal heirs for Ext.P1 certificate. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now contend that Ext.P1 is illegal and without jurisdiction. Even if it is so, I am not inclined to entertain such a contention in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in so far as it was pursuant to the application and consent of the petitioner also that Ext.P1 certificate was issued. If the petitioner has got a case that the share in the gratuity amount as agreed had not been given to the petitioner, the remedy of the petitioner was to file a suit for recovery of that amount. That being so, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.