VALSALAKUMARI Vs. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THE HOME SECRETARY, HOME (C) DEPARTMENT AND THE REGISTRAR SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY, HIGH COURT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which upheld the order of the Government rejecting the appellant's claim for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. The appellant's claim relates back to the death of her father, who was a Peon attached to the Subordinate Judiciary. The death of the father of the appellant took place on 22.01.1978, almost 3 years after he was permitted to retire on 12.02.1975; on medical grounds. Even going by the age of the appellant in the affidavit filed, being 53 years as in 2008, she was a major at the time of the retirement of her father and his subsequent death. It was only in the year 2001 an appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme was sought for and the same was sought to be furthered by the filing of a writ petition before this Court. As directed by this Court, the claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment was considered and by Exhibit P3 letter dated 8.11.2002, the Government rejected the same.

(2.) The appellant, again in the year 2003, made a representation to reconsider the decision, which was also rejected. Still later, in the year 2007 a further representation was made, upon which the Government again informed the Registrar of this Court that the appellant's request cannot be agreed upon. The Registrar, thereafter conveyed the decision of the Government to the appellant, on the basis of which the instant writ petition was filed.

(3.) The learned Single Judge has noticed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & 2 others, 1994 4 SCC 138 to reject the claim of the appellant. The Supreme Court has declared that appointments under the dying-in-harness scheme is an exception to the general rule of recruitment granting equal opportunity to the candidates and that the same cannot be claimed after a long period of time, since the very spirit of the scheme is to provide immediate succour to the bereaved family and ensure that the death of the employee will not throw his family on to the streets. In the instant case, we have to notice that the death of the father of the appellant occurred about three years after his retirement. The 1st application for consideration under the dying-in-harness scheme was made in the year 2001 and that ended in a rejection, which was not challenged at all by the appellant. The subsequent applications also did not find favour with the Government; nor could it find favour, since already the claim was rejected on valid grounds and the same attained finality. We are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is not liable to be interfered with for reason of there being no legally enforceable claim for the appellant and also for reason of delay.