IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 12642 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- E.G.MAHESWARI AMMA, W/O.LATE S.PRABHA, EDAYCHIYEL VEEDU, MANGARAM P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT JUDGE (ADMINISTRATION), PATHANAMTHITTA. BY GP SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).12642/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner's husband was an L.D.Clerk in the Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta. For unauthorized absence, he was removed from service by order dated 25.3.1987. Though he approached the authorities for compassionate allowance, there was no response. Therefore he filed W.P.(C).3778/2005 before this Court. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment dated 2.2.2005 directing the 1st respondent to consider the grievance. 2. Accordingly the claim was considered and by Ext.P8 order dated 1.7.2005, petitioner's husband was advised to file a representation before the District Judge for allowance. Accordingly he took up the matter with the District Judge. By Ext.P9 order dated 26.10.2005 the claim was rejected. 3. Soon thereafter, on 29.10.2006, petitioner's husband expired and Ext.P10 is the death certificate. Petitioner again moved the W.P.(C).12642/10 2 Government by Ext.P11 representation dated 5.11.2009 for compassionate allowance and there was no response. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 4. From the above, it is evident that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate allowance was rejected by Ext.P9 order. The rejection was also conveyed to the applicant, the deceased husband of the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition filed at this distance of time, is to be rejected. 5. Petitioner however submits that she made an application for compassionate allowance to the Chief Minister also and the Government intimated that in view of Ext.P9 order of the District Judge rejecting the claim, the application cannot be favourably considered. If, according to the Government, she is eligible for compassionate allowance, there is no reason to hold Ext.P9 against the petitioner and deny her the benefit. Therefore, clarifying that if, according to the 1st respondent petitioner is otherwise eligible, and Ext.P9 will not stand in the way of the claim being considered, W.P.(C).12642/10 3 and that the claim of the petitioner shall be considered untrammelled that the writ petition is disposed of. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs