DIVYA O Vs. OMANA V S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. M. Joseph, J.- The writ petition and the first appeal are filed by the same person. The writ petition came to be filed first. The prayers in the Writ Petition are as follows:

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY , it appears that the petitioner in the writ petition has filed the appeal challenging Ext. P-12 in the Writ Petition. Briefly put, the facts may be noticed. The petitioner/appellant is the daughter of one late Mr. Sathyakumar, who was employed as an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. He died in harness on 20-4-2008. Sri Sathyakumar and the mother of the petitioner/appellant got divorcedas per the judgment of the Family Court, Trivandrum. Further the case of the petitioner is that the late Sathyakumar got married to 6th respondent in the writ petition, who is the respondent in the appeal hereinafter referred to as the respondent. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/appellant has filed O.S. No. 163/2010 claiming partition before the Subordinate Judges Court, Nedumangad. The petitioner/ appellant applied for compassionate appointment on 22-9-2008 vide Ext. P-2 in the Writ Petition. It was returned vide Ext. P-3 directing her to produce various documents including the consent of family members, as per the Heirship Certificate. The petitioner/appellant issued Ext. P-4 notice requesting the 6th respondent to give consent. The petitioner/ appellant sought information under the Right to Information Act. Ext. P-5 and P-5(a) are the copies of the reply given by the 4th respondent in the writ petition. It is inter alia stated that various retiral benefits, of which the petitioner has 2/3rd right allegedly excepting PF, which the deceased had received and the monthly family pension has been sanctioned. Thereafter the petitioner/appellant applied as per a fresh performa vide Ext. P-6. The petitioner/appellant also made a representation as Ext. P-7. Then the petitioner/ appellant filed Ext. P-10 I.A. before the Subordinate Judges Court in the partition suit for an interim mandatory injunction against the respondent compelling her to give consent to the compassionate appointment sought by the petitioner/appellant in terms of Clause 14(c) of G.O.(P) No. 12/99/P& ARD dated 24-5-2009. Ext. P-12 in the writ petition purports to be the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nedumangad rejecting the application. It is the very same order which has been challenged in the appeal. It is the case of the petitioner/appellant that the appeal came to be filed on the basis of the observations made by the Court that the appeal is the proper remedy.

(3.) EVEN though we had made an attempt to have the dispute resolved by an alternate dispute mechanism, it did not produce results. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the order of the court below is legal and the party respondent cannot be compelled to give her consent. The learned counsel for the petitioner would pray at any rate that prayer No. 3 in the writ petition may be considered.