RAJEENA BEEVI Vs. CHEIF ENGINEER VYDHUTHY BHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST petitioner is the daughter of the second petitioner. The second petitioner was an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board. The second petitioner was due to retire on superannuation at the age of 55 years on 31.1.2002. The second petitioner was suffering from a serious disease on account of which from 1992 onwards he was on medical leave for various periods as follows: During 1) From 08/07/92 to 31.12.92 - 78 days 2) From 01/01/93 to 20.11.93 - 141 days 3) From 19.10.94 to 28.11.94 - 11 days 4) From 10/03/95 to 21.10.95 - 25 days 5) From 27.02.96 to 31.12.96 - 136 days 6) From 01/01/97 to 31.08.97 - 163 days 7) From 14.05.98 to 31.12.98 - 88 days 8) From 02/01/99 to 31.12.99 - 292 days 9) From 01/01/00 to 11/08/00 - 78 days Ultimately, by Ext.P1 application dated 4.1.2001, supported by Ext.P1(A) medical certificate, certifying that the second petitioner is completely and permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind in the Kerala State Electricity Board, the second petitioner sought retirement on medical grounds. Consequent to the said application, by Ext.P2, the second petitioner was relieved from service. Subsequently, the second petitioner's medical condition was approved by the Medical Board by Ext.P3. Pursuant thereto, by Ext.P4 order dated 7.8.2001, the second petitioner was allowed to retire from the service of the Board on the ground of invalidity, with effect from 16.4.2001 under Rules 42 and 43 of Part III of Kerala Service Rules. As per a Board order in force, dependant of employees, who retire on invalidity grounds with more than one year service left, is entitled for compassionate employment in the Board. The first petitioner applied for such appointment by Ext.P5 application. That was rejected by Ext.P6 order. Ext.P7 appeal filed by the first petitioner before the Government was not considered favouarbly by the Government also. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: "(i) a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling the original of Exts. P4 and P6 and quash the same with respect to the retirement of the second petitioner with effect from 16-4-2001 and to accept the request of the first petitioner and provide an employment in the Kerala State Electricity Board; (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to appoint the first petitioner in the service of the respondents"

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent, wherein the contention taken is that the second petitioner's application for retirement on medical grounds, though filed on 4.1.2001, was accepted only on 16.4.2001 on the basis of a medical certificate of that date. The second petitioner's normal date of retirement was 31.1.2002. After 16.4.2001, the second petitioner did not have minimum one year's service left so as to give a claim to the first petitioner for appointment under the Scheme. Therefore, the first respondent would contend that the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for.