ELSAMMA MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common questions arise for adjudication in these Original Petitions. For convenience, Exhibits in O.P. No.5294 of 1988 will be referred to unless otherwise stated. In O.P. No.5294 of 1988 and O.P. No.1827 of 1991 the main challenge is against Clause.34 of Ext. P5 government order. In O.P. No.6316 of 1988 the main challenge is against Ext. P4 in the said case. Ext. P4 is a communication by which the request in Ext. P2 in that original petition was declined. The main prayer is to quash Ext. P4 and also to strike down Clause.15 of Ext. P5 (Ext. P3 in the said O.P.)

(2.) Ext. P5 government order consolidates the conditions and procedure for applying for employment assistance under the Dying in harness Scheme. Clause.34 reads:

(3.) In O.P. 5294 of 1988 the petitioner's father died in harness on 16-11-1977. He left behind his widow, a son and four daughters. The son applied on 21-1-1978 for the benefit under the Scheme as a dependant of the deceased government servant. The application was rejected; according to the petitioner the rejection of the application was on the ground that the income of the family of the deceased government servant exceeded the limit fixed by the Government. At the time of the death of the father the petitioner was a minor. She became major on 25-4-1984. Three years before attaining majority she submitted Ext. P4 application on 23-2-1987 for employment under the Dying in Harness Scheme. That application was also rejected by Ext. P6. Though Ext. P6 did not give any specific reason for rejection of her application, reason is stated in Ext. P7. Ext. P7 states that as per the existing Rules the request from another candidate can be entertained only in respect of cases of death which occurred on or after 1-7-1983 and since the death of the petitioner's father occurred prior to 1-7-1983, she is not entitled to the benefit. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to apply again as per Clause.34 of Ext. P5 and the restriction in the said clause that the said concession will be operative only with respect to dependants of government servants who died on or after 1-7-1983 is discriminatory and unjust. Therefore the said part of Clause.34 being violative of Art.14 of the Constitution is liable to be struck down.