SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main aspect that arises for consideration in these original petitions is whether the classification in Clause 15 of the dying-inharness scheme, G. O. (P) No. 34/87/p and ARD dated December 17, 1987 is unreasonable and liable to be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. By that clause employment assistance under the scheme has to be given without considering the annual income of the family of the applicant in respect of Government servants dying- in-harness on or after July 1, 1983. In respect of Government servants who died-in-harness on or after January 1, 1982 the income of the family should not exceed Rs. 9000/- per year to make a dependant eligible fot the employment assistance. In cases where the Government servants died prior to January 1, 1982 the income limit applicable will be Rs. 6000/ -. In the note to Clause 15 it is clarified that the benefit of giving employment under the scheme without reference to income limit will however be available to the minor dependants of Government servants who died prior to July 1, 1983 and who become eligible for making their application for employment assistance on or after July 1, 1983, on attaining majority or within the permissible period of three years after attaining majority.

(2.) PETITIONER in O. P. 6548/87 is the son of Sri. N. Gangadharan Nair who was a teacher in a Government Lower Primary School. He died in harness on January 24, 1967. Petitioner was a minor at that time. Within one year of attaining majority an application was submitted for employment assistance. That was rejected on October 30, 1979. Another application submitted by petitioner was also rejected by Ext. P4 order. On January 7, 1983 petitioner made another request seeking relaxation of the condition regarding the ceiling fixed in the matter of annual income and also pointing out that the Government had relaxed in some other cases. That application also was rejected. Aggrieved by those orders petitioner moved this Court by O. P. 4885/83. That was disposed of on October 30, 1986 observing that prima facie there are no grounds to interfere. In view of the representation of the petitioner that he was proposing to make a fresh application in the light of the latest modifications to the concered Government Order a final pronouncement was not made by this Court. It was thereafter that Ext. P 8 representation was made by petitioner. That also was rejected by Ext. P12 order. Hence the original petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts. P3, P4, P6 and P12 and to declare that the condition in Ext. P10 which disentitles the dependants of Government servants who died in harness prior to July 1, 1983 and who became eligible for making an application for employment assistance under the scheme prior to July 1, 1983 ineligible to apply for the same without reference to income limit as void. A declaration that petitioner is entitled to employment assistance under the scheme is also sought. No counter statement is seen filed on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) O. P. 9849/87 is filed by one Chandra Babu, son of Mrithunjayan, a Head Constable attached to the Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. He died in harness on June 26, 1979. At that time petitioner's mother was employed in the Kerala State Electricity Board. Petitioner applied under the dying-in-harness scheme. The request was rejected on the ground that the family income exceeded Rs. 4,200/- per annum. The income was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 6,000/ -. The further request made by petitioner was also rejected as per Ext. P2. Still petitioner repeated his request. Based on the Government Orders Exts. P5 and P6 dated Oc-tober31, 1986 and January 15, 1987 respectively an application was presented by the petitioner. That request was also rejected by Ext. P8 dated June 17, 1987 on the ground that the income of the family exceeded the ceiling limit. Hence this petition seeking a writ of certiorari to declare Exts. P5 and P6 to the extent to which they debar the consideration of petitioners claim as violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and for issue of a writ of mandamus to consider the case of petitioner under the scheme. On behalf of first respondent a counter affidavit was filed contending that the claim of petitioner is not sustainable in view of the earlier rejections under the then existing orders and that the benefits of the revised G. Os. can be availed of only by dependants of persons who die after July 1, 1983.