(1.) THE question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether a married son of a person who died in harness would get the benefit of R. 51b Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules in the case of teaching staff and under R. 9a of Chapter XXIV-A of K. E. R. in the case of non-teaching staff. Applicant's father was a Peon in the St. Joseph 's High School who died on 20. 12. 1996 in harness. THE Manager of the School immediately promoted one P. Krishnan who was a Menial as Peon on 2. 1. 1997 in that vacancy and the appointment was approved by the District Education Officer. In the vacancy which arose on promotion of Krishnan the Manager appointed Sr. Nirmala on 6. 1. 1997 as Menial. Approval was sought for to that appointment as well. Petitioner then filed a complaint before the District Educational Officer and filed O. P. 4948/97, which was disposed of directing the District Educational officer to dispose of the said representation.
(2.) DISTRICT Educational Officer heard the applicant as well as the manager and passed order dated 1. 7. 2000 and found that Manager has overlooked the right of the applicant under R. 9a of Chapter XXIV-A of K. E. R. A direction was issued to the Manager to appoint the applicant as full time menial in the first vacancy which arose after the date of his application. Aggrieved by the same the Writ Petition has been preferred by the Manager.
(3.) WE have to examine the question raised in this case in the abovementioned factual background. R. 9-A of Chapter XXIV-A of KER cast an obligation on the Manager to give employment to a dependant of the non-teaching staff of an aided school dying in harness. In this connection it is relevant to extract the said provision for easy reference: "9-A. The Manager shall give employment to a dependant of the non-teaching staff of an aided school dying in harness. Government Orders relating to employment assistance to the dependants of Government servants dying in harness shall, mutatis mutandis, apply in the matter of such appointments. " WE have to read the abovementioned provision along with the liberalised scheme for compassionate employment of the dependants of government Servant who the in harness under the Government Order GO (P)7/95/p & ARD dated 30th March 1995. It is relevant to refer to Clause 13 (a) which we extract below : "13 (a ). Only one dependent will be given employment assistance under the scheme in the event of the death of a Government Servant. Employment assistance shall be given to the widow/ widower, son, daughter, brother, or sister in the said order of priority. Son and daughter shall include adopted son and adopted daughter respectively and will rank after son/ daughter. No other dependent shall be eligible or given appointment under the scheme. " ; Counsel for the management as we have already indicated submitted that the above mentioned clause has excluded married daughter/son from the purview of clause 13 (a) of the Scheme while the previous Government order dated 23. 12. 92 specifically included married daughter and son also. Consequently the manager is justified in not entertaining the claim of the married daughter. Such a contention was however accepted by a learned judge of this Court in 1999 (1) KLT 249 and WA 287/99 and WA 284/99 filed against the said judgment were dismissed. All the same we are of the view a more reasonable approach is to consider the claim of married son and. daughter also. Provided they can show, in spite of the marriage, he/she was a dependent on the deceased and could not tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the breadwinner of the family. The marriage may change the status of a person, but his or her status as a dependent of the deceased may continue. WE are of the view that the mere fact that either daughter or son got married does not mean that he/she has lost his claim for appointment under R. 51b of Chapter XIV-A of K. E. R. as well as R. 9a of Chapter XXIV-A of KER read with Government Order dated 30. 3. 1995. The object and purpose of R. 5 IB of Chapter XIV-A as well as R. 9a of Chapter xxiv-A of K. E. R. is to give some assistance to the dependants of the deceased. Object of those provisions as well as the liberalised scheme framed by the government would be defeated if the claim of a married daughter or son is rejected if they are otherwise dependants on the deceased. In view of the above mentioned circumstance we hold that married son or married daughter is also entitled to get benefit of R. 51-B of Chapter XIV-A as well as R. 9a of Chapter xxiv-A of K. E. R. read with the liberalised scheme. WE therefore find no merit in the Writ Appeal and direct the 1st appellant to give effect to Ext. P3 order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. . .