SURESH BABU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claim of an adopted son of a Government servant who died in harness was rejected for the reason that adopted sons/daughters are excluded from the category of dependants. That order is under challenge in this O. P.

(2.) SRI M. Achuthan died in harness on July 10, 1971 while working as a Lay Secretary and Treasurer of Women's and Children's Hospital, Kozhikode. Petitioner was abandoned by his parents a day or two after his birth. He was under the protection of Medical Officer, Alathur. By order of District Court, Kozhikode in O. P. 4/1969 Sri Achuthan was appointed as the guardian of petitioner. The legal custody of petitioner was entrusted to Achuthan and his wife who were not having any children. Sri Achuthan adopted petitioner as his son in conformity with the customery and religious formalities. After attaining majority petitioner filed an application for employment assistance under the dying-in-harness scheme. His request was rejected on the ground that there is no provision to extend the benefit to adopted sons and daughters. Note 3 to Clause 11 of Ext. P10 G. O. dated January 21, 1970 and note 3 to Clause 16 of Ext. P11 G. O. Dt. December 17, 1987 which states that sons and daughters will not include adopted sons and adopted daughters are challenged in this O. P. and a declaration is sought that these notes are illegal, unconstitutional and void. Petitioner seeks a writ of cartiorari to quash note 3 to Clause 11 of Ext. P10 and note 3 to Clause 16 of Ext. P11. A declaration that petitioner is entitled for appointment as an L. D. Clerk under the scheme is also sought.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 it is contended that the intention of the Government is to give employment assistance to one of the dependants of Government servants who died in harness. Specific mention has been made in Exts. P10 and P11 orders that sons and daughters will not include adopted sons/adopted daughters. The Government is competent to decide as a matter of policy to whom employment assistance should be given under the scheme. Petitioner has no right to question that policy. It is a matter of discretion of the Government as to who should be considered as the dependants of Government servants. It is therefore contended that the impugned notes are perfectly legal and valid and are not liable to be declared as illegal and void.