GEETHU MOHAN Vs. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging Ext. P-10 whereby her application for compassionate appointment under the Travancore Devaswom Board was rejected. The petitioner's father died in harness on 16-8-1995 while working as Sub Group Officer under the Devaswom. He left behind his widow and three girl children including the petitioner and aged parents. The petitioner was aged 6 years at the time of father's death and admittedly her mother was then, employed in Kerala Small Industries and Development Corporation, Ltd. Subsequently, the petitioner's mother got remarried and on attainment of majority the petitioner submitted Ext. P-2 application dated 3-12-2007 for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. It is the contention of the petitioner that going by the rules framed by the 1st respondent in the case of a dependent who was a minor at the time of death of the concerned employee in harness the time limit for making application is three years from the date of attainment of majority. It is submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner submitted such an application under dying-in-harness scheme within the said stipulated time. The petitioner assails Ext. P-10 on the ground that the respondents have rejected the application on wrong computation of the annual income of the family. Evidently, as per Ext. P-10 the application was rejected on the ground that the annual family income of the petitioner's family is in excess of 1 1/2 lakhs, the amount fixed for the purpose by the respondents. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the Village Officer had issued income certificate showing the annual income of the petitioner's family as Rs. 3,30,948 based on a wrong assessment and even going by the procedure prescribed by the respondents for calculating the annual income of such a family the salary of the mother of the concerned applicant/the widow of the deceased employee ought to have been deducted. At any rate, according to the petitioner rejection of Ext. P-2 application of the petitioner for appointment under dying-in-harness scheme based on the aforesaid ground is unsustainable. It is with the aforesaid contentions that the petitioner assails Ext. P-10 order in this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M. G.B. Gram in Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, 2013 6 SLR 227 assumes relevance in the circumstances. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that appointment under dying-in-harness could not be claimed as a matter of right as no right would vest with anybody on the death of an employee in harness. Going by the decision the mere death of an employee in harness would not enable a dependent to claim appointment on compassionate grounds as a matter of right and the entitlement would depend upon the circumstances or consideration as to whether without providing an appointment on compassionate grounds the family could tide over immediate crisis. In the decision in Union of India v. Sushamma Chandy, 2013 4 KerLT 137 (Case No. 148) a Division Bench of this Court considered the question whether an appointment on compassionate grounds could be granted after very many years since the death of the concerned employee in harness. It was held that a compassionate appointment could not be granted after a number of years for a simple reason that the immediate crisis would have then be extinguished and giving such appointment would be against public policy, since otherwise the post could be offered to a candidate from the open market. It was further held that such employment is an exemption to the constitutional provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and it was brought in only with the object of providing immediate succour to the family to overcome the sudden financial crisis and not with a view to confer any status on the family. In the said circumstances, the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner for an appointment on compassionate grounds calls for a consideration in the light of the decisions referred . As noticed hereinbefore, the father of the petitioner died in harness on 16-8-1995 and at that point of time the mother of the petitioner was very much in employment under Kerala Small Industries and Development Corporation Limited. True that, losing the love of father at the tender age of 6 years is unfortunate. At the same time, while considering the question of entitlement to appointment on compassionate grounds what requires consideration is whether without providing an appointment under the compassionate grounds the family concerned could tide over the crisis. In this case, evidently, at the time of death of the petitioner's father her mother was very much employed and she is still in employment. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that the parents of any child are having equal responsibility for bringing up the child. True that, the petitioner's mother got remarried later, but it is evident that at the time of death of the petitioner's father she was aged only 6 years and she was brought up by her mother and she is presently aged 24 years. Merely because the petitioner had submitted an application within the time stipulated for making an application for compassionate appointment, it cannot and will not confer any indefeasible right on the petitioner to get compassionate appointment as on account of the death of her father no such right vested in her. Going by the decisions referred above and the factual position obtained in the instant case I have no hesitation to hold that after the lapse of more than 18 years it would be against public interest to compel the respondent to grant the petitioner appointment under the compassionate employment scheme. There may be some mistakes in the matter of calculation of the annual income of the petitioner's family but that by itself cannot be a reason for this Court to order for petitioner's appointment after 18 years since the death of the petitioner's father. In the said circumstances, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M. G.B. Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, 2013 6 SLR 227 (S.C.) and the decision in Sushamma Chandy's case I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext. P-10 order whereby the application of the petitioner for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme was rejected though on a different ground. In the said circumstances this writ petition is liable to fail and accordingly it is dismissed.