SREEKANTH V. CHANDRAN Vs. KSRTC AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the dependent family member of an employee, who died before assigning with any duty and before performing any duty pursuant to his appointment and reporting for joining duty, is entitled to claim compassionate appointment, is the question involved in this case. Brief facts are that, Sri. V.S. Chandran Pillai, father of the petitioner, was earlier working as an empanelled Driver on a provisional basis in the 1st respondent Corporation, from the year 1992 onwards. He was advised for regular appointment in the cadre of Reserve Driver by the Public Service Commission, through Ext. P2 proceedings, Dt. 22.6.2000. The 1st respondent Corporation had issued Ext. P4 Memo appointing him as Reserve Driver, subject to conditions incorporated thereunder. In Ext. P4 it is mentioned that if the candidate accepts the appointment based on the conditions stipulated, he should report for duty before the 2nd respondent on 28.7.2000 or within 45 days of the receipt of the said order, with the original records. Specific claim of the petitioner is that the deceased Sri. Chandran Pillai had reported for joining duty before the 2nd respondent on the forenoon of 29.7.2000 with all the requisite documents, and along with a Medical Certificate. The 2nd respondent had admitted him to duty after verification of the documents, but advised him to wait for a posting order. It is stated that Sri. Chandran Pillai was not issued with any posting order inspite of his waiting for the day on which he had reported for joining duty and on the subsequent day. According to the petitioner, Sri. Chandran Pillai developed severe illness on the next day, and he got admitted at Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. He died on 9.8.2000 during the course of treatment. Ext. P5 certificate issued by the 2nd respondent is produced to show that Sri. Chandran Pillai was admitted in the unit as Reserve Drive on 29.7.2000, but he has not performed any duty in that unit.

(2.) The petitioner was a minor at the time of death of his father. On attaining majority he approached the authorities in the 1st respondent Corporation seeking employment under the 'compassionate employment scheme'. Application in the prescribed format was submitted as per Ext. P7. But the 1st respondent rejected the claim through Ext. P8 stating that the deceased, eventhough reported for joining duty on 29.7.2000, had returned without joining duty due to his serious illness. It is mentioned that the deceased Sri. Chandran Pillai cannot be considered as a regular employee of the Corporation. Therefore the request of the petitioner cannot be considered, since he is not dependent of a deceased regular employee. Ext. P8 is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) Contention of the petitioner is mainly based on Rule 6(e) of Part I of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (KS and SSR) which prescribes that a person is said to be 'on duty' as a member of the service when he is waiting for posting orders after reporting for duty. It is contended that, Ext. P9 'compassionate employment scheme' formulated by the State Government was adopted by the 1st respondent Corporation and the petitioner is entitled for getting employment in terms of the scheme. It is further contended that the family was dependent on the income derived out of the employment of the deceased and that the petitioner as well as other legal heirs have only limited income or employment.