IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 35629 of 2009(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JAYABINDU.K.V, W/O.LATE K.N.SHAJI, AGED 34, RESIDING AT KULAVANKUNNU HOUSE, CHENGAMANADU, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN RARE EARTHS LTD., RED, ALWAYE. 2. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, PLOT NO.1207, VEERASAVARKAR MARG, NEAR SIDHI VINAYAKA TEMPLE, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI-400 028. 3. RAJ KUMAR, S/O.VENKETACHALAM, HELPER, INDIAN RARE EARTHS, ALWAYE. 4. SHIAZ, S/O.RAHIM, HELPER, INDIAN RARE EARTHS, ALUVA. 5. PRASAD, S/O.PRAKASH, HELPER, INDIAN RARE EARTHS, ALUVA. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, MR.K.JOHN MATHAI, MR.P.BENNY THOMAS, MR.P.GOPINATH, MR.V.J.ANAND. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 35629 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the widow of Late K.N.Shaji, who was an employee of the first respondent, Indian Rare Earths Ltd, Alwaye. He died on 6.6.2004. He has left his wife, who is the petitioner and a son, who is 10 years old and aged parents. Shaji was the only son of the family. The petitioner has submitted an application for compassionate appointment under the dying-in-harness Scheme. Her complaint is that no orders have been passed thereon till date. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is a person with very little education and who is struggling to make a living by doing manual labour on daily wages. She has only her income to maintain herself and her family. Therefore, she seeks favourable orders on her various representations. 3. The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the reason for not considering the case of the petitioner favourably was that the application submitted by the petitioner had remained Wpc 35629/09 2 pending for want of vacancies for more than the cut off period of three years, during which alone such applications are admitted. According to the counsel, as per orders applicable to the company, compassionate appointments are given only to help the family to tide over the immediately debility caused by the death of the bread winner. Such applications are not considered as a rule after a period of three years. 4. In the present case, though the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment, the application had remained pending only because of want of vacancies. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied compassionate appointment absolutely on the ground that her application is more than three years old. Ext.P6 representation has been submitted by the petitioner to the second respondent and is still pending before the said authority. 5. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 representation in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk