IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 26068 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SMITHA CHANDRAN, D/O. T.A. CHANDRAN, AGED 29, THEREZHATH, CHEMPU P.O., VAIKOM KOTTAYAM, 686 601. BY ADV. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF SMT.MOLLY JACOB SMT.RABIA BEEGAM T.K. SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR SMT.K.C.MANJU SMT.S.REMYA SRI.S.BIJU (KOOTTIKKADA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT LTD., (MATSYAFED) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -09. 2. GENERAL MANAGER, MATSYAFED, KAMALESWARAM, MANACADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 09 3. DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER P.NANDAKUMAR ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYA MOHANAN, SC, MATSYAFED FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 26068/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE DETAH CERTIFICATE OF T.A.CHANDRAN. P2. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.28.12.2008 OF R1 TO R3. P3. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.14.8.09. P4. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.24.5.99. P5. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.19.3.2001. P6. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.15.11.2007. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.26068 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 18th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the daughter of late T.A.Chandran, who was an employee of the 1st respondent and died while in service on 15.6.2007. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to compassionate employment under Rule 188A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, which is not being given to the petitioner. 2. The contention of respondents 1 and 2 is that they have already adopted a resolution for giving compassionate employment to the petitioner, but concurrence is not being given by the 3rd respondent, who is the authority to do the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by Ext.P3, the 2nd respondent himself has rejected the application of the petitioner and the same does not say that it is because the 3rd respondent has not given concurrence. I find that by Ext.P2, the 2nd respondent has forwarded the matter to the 3rd respondent for his concurrence. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders pursuant to Ext.P2, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. On receipt of the orders on Ext.P2 from the 3rd respondent, respondents 1 and 2 shall take further steps in accordance with the same, within another month. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2 sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE