IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 1341 of 2009(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHITRA.H,D/O.HARIHARA SUBRAHMANIYAN, AGED 27 YEARS,19/159,NELLIKKADU HOUSE, THATHAMANGALAM, PALAKKAD,NOW RESIDING AT PALATTU HOUSE,AYYAMPATHY, THATHAMANGALAM,PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REP; BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,PUBLIC WORKS(A)DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,PWD (ADMINISTRATION), OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,PWD ROADS SUB DIVISION,CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.1341 OF 2009 (I) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's father late Harihara Subramanyan died while working in the office of the 3rd respondent. He died in harness on 15.7.2005 leaving behind his mother, wife, son and the petitioner as his legal heirs. Ext.P1 is a legal heir ship certificate. From Ext.P2 it is seen that his son expired on 13.1.2008. 2. The wife of the deceased submitted Ext.P3 application for employment under the compassionate scheme but however that was rejected by Ext.P4 on the ground that the application was not in the proper form. Subsequently, enclosing necessary certificates including the son and other legal heirs the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application. That application was considered and rejected by the first respondent as per Ext.P8 order on the ground that the petitioner being a married daughter, under the existing scheme, she is ineligible for appointment on compassionate ground. It is challenging Ext.P8, this writ petition is filed. 3. A reading of Extg.P8 shows that the only reason stated to hold that the petitioner is ineligible for appointment under the WPC.No.1341 /09 :2 : compassionate ground is that the petitioner is a married daughter of the deceased. In several cases of this nature this court has held that marriage by itself will not render an application ineligible for appointment under the compassionate ground and that what is relevant to be considered is whether the applicant was a dependent of the deceased. Ext.P8 shows that this aspect of the matter is not considered. For the aforesaid reasons, Ext.P8 order cannot be sustained and is quashed. 4. The first respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P5 application made by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground ignoring the fact that she is a married daughter of the deceased and duly adverting to the dependency of the petitioner. An order as above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 3 months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the first respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.1341 /09 :3 :