GOPALAN Vs. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While working as Forest Guard one Murukesan who is the son of petitioners 1 and 2 and the brother of the third petitioner died on 9.1.2010. Subsequently, the petitioners submitted Ext.P-3 representation on 18.2.2011 with the requests to disburse the retiral benefits due on account of death of the said Murukesan to petitioners 1 and 2 and to grant appointment under Dying-in-Harness Scheme to the third petitioner. The fourth respondent informed the first petitioner that the aforesaid requests could not be acceded to. It is in the said circumstances that this Writ Petition has been filed mainly with the prayers to quash Ext.P-5 and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to take a decision on Ext.P-3 and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioners and the fifth respondent. The further prayer is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding respondents I to4 to disburse the death-cum-retirement benefits to petitioners 1 and 2 and to appoint the third petitioner under Dying-in-Harness scheme in Government service.

(2.) There is no dispute with regard to the status of the fifth respondent as the legally wedded wife of the deceased Murukesan. The contention is that the said Murukesan died of snake bite and at that point of time the fifth respondent was carrying. Shortly after the death she got it aborted at Co-operative Hospital, Palakkad, it is contended. According to the petitioners, the fifth respondent was not inclined to participate in the obsequies of Murukesan. Evidently, as per letter No.E-50/10 dated 29.1.2010 the fifth respondent was informed to submit necessary applications and documents including Death Certificate, legal heirship certificate, forgetting insurance benefits, appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme and also the retiral benefits. However, according to the petitioners, on account of the aforesaid actions on the part of the fifth respondent she is not entitled to get the Death-cum-retirement benefits and petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to get the same and the third petitioner is entitled to get appointment under Dying-in-Harness Scheme, on account of the death of the said Murukesan.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader.