CORPORATE MANAGER Vs. E JAYANARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment dated 28.2.2002 in O.P.No.32270/2000. The first respondent in the Original Petition is the appellant herein.

(2.) The mother of the petitioner in the Original Petition was a U.P.S.A. in St. Mary s High School, Chengaloor under the management of the first respondent. She died in harness on 29.9.1981 after an approved service of about 20 years. The petitioner s father was an ex-serviceman and he expired in 1987. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 representation dated 6.11.1998 to the first respondent requesting for employment assistance as per G.O.(P)No.7/95/P & ARD dated 30.3.1995. In Ext.P1 the petitioner stated that he was aged 34 years and had passed SSLC Examination in September 1980. It was also stated in Ext.P1 that application in the prescribed form with all necessary enclosures would be submitted in due course. Since the petitioner did not get any reply from the first respondent for a long time, he submitted Ext.P2 representation dated 6.1.2000 to the third respondent Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur. In Ext.P2 the petitioner stated that the Manager had not given any reply to his representation dated 6.11.1998 and that several persons were appointed by the Manger as non-teaching staff after the petitioner had submitted the representation. In Ext.P2 the petitioner enquired with the third respondent whether he would get any help from the government in the matter. In response to Ext.P2 representation the third respondent Deputy Director sent Ext.P3 communication dated 15.4.2000 to the petitioner. In Ext.P3 the third respondent stated that the Manger had informed him through the District Educational Officer, Irinjalakkuda that the Manger would not have any objection to appoint the petitioner in the next vacancy of non-teaching staff. The third respondent advised the petitioner to get in touch with the Manager as and when vacancy arose. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 7.6.2000 to the second respondent Director of Public Instruction, Thiruvananthapuram. In Ext.P4 the petitioner requested the second respondent to take all necessary steps for appointing the petitioner in the non-teaching cadre under the first respondent. On receipt of Ext.P4 representation the second respondent sent Ext.P5 communication to the first respondent inviting his attention to the petitioner s representation dated 6.11.1998 and directing him to settle the claim of the petitioner as per Rule 51-B of Chapter XIV-A KER and to report the fact to the second respondent. Still the first respondent did not give any appointment to the petitioner and hence he filed the Original Petition praying for a direction to the first respondent to appoint the petitioner in any of the schools under the management of the first respondent as Clerk or Peon or F.T.Menial. There was also a prayer for directing the first respondent to comply with the directions in Ext.P5. The petitioner also prayed for a direction to the third respondent to take action against the first respondent under Rule 7 of Chapter XIV-A KER.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent it is admitted that the petitioner s mother was a U.P.S.A. in St. Mary s High School, Chengaloor and that she died while in service on 29.9.1981. It is also admitted that the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 representation dated 6.11.1998 to the first respondent requesting for employment assistance under the dying in harness scheme. However, it is pointed out that in Ext.P1 representation itself the petitioner had stated that the application in the prescribed form with all necessary enclosures would be submitted in due course but no such application in the prescribed form was submitted at any time. According to the first respondent (appellant herein) the petitioner is sufficiently rich and he is not eligible for consideration under the dying in harness scheme. Details have been furnished in the counter affidavit. It is also stated that the petitioner is married and he has a child aged 3 years and that the petitioner s wife had worked as a Teacher in a leave vacancy in A.L.P. School, Chengaloor. According to the first respondent, dying in harness scheme was introduced with the object of helping the parties concerned to tide over the sudden financial crisis caused by the death of the breadwinner. As the petitioner s mother had died on 29.9.1981 and Ext.P1 representation was given only on 6.11.1998, the petitioner is not eligible for employment assistance under the dying in harness scheme. It is also contended that since Ext.P1 representation dated 6.11.1998 is not in the prescribed form, there was no proper application from the petitioner to be acted upon by the first respondent. It is further contended that the petitioner had no financial crisis consequent to the death of his mother. According to the first respondent, the petitioner was and he continues to be financially sound. It is also mentioned that against Ext.P5 order of the second respondent the first respondent filed an appeal dated 24.10.2000 before the Government and that the appeal is even now pending before the Government. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, he has reiterated the contention that since the petitioner had not made an application in the prescribed form which is mandatory as per Clause 19 of the Government Order dated 30.3.1995, the Manager was not bound to respond to his request. According to the first respondent, an application at all. It is also pointed out that employment assistance scheme was made applicable to the aided schools from 16.1.1997 but the petitioner, for the first time, submitted his application only on 6.11.1998, i.e. more than one year and 9 months after the scheme was made applicable.