IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17025 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RIYAS K.P., S/O.LATE ALAVIKUTTY, AGED 30 YEARS, POOLAKUNNU, KARUVARAKUNDU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676523. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH G. PRABHU SRI.S.KANNAN NAIR SMT.N.U.DEEPA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, RPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE OF KERALA, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. MR.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.17025 of 2010 (C) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P5 order is under challenge in the writ petition. 2. On expiry of the petitioner's father, Shri.Alavikkutty, who was a Police Constable, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application for employment assistance under the Compassionate Employment Scheme. Subsequently, the petitioner relinquished his claim in order to enable his sister to claim appointment under the Scheme. It is stated that his sister did not pursue the claim and thereafter on 28/07/2007 the petitioner submitted yet another application for compassionate appointment. That was considered and rejected by Ext.P5 dated 06/10/2009. Two reasons are stated therein. One is that the application dated 28/07/2007 was filed beyond the time limit specified in the order issued by the Government for applying for the benefit of Compassionate Employment Scheme. The other reason stated is that the applicant is a married son and therefore is ineligible. WP(C) No.17025/2010 -2- In several cases, this Court has held that married sons/daughters are also eligible for compassionate appointment and that what is relevant to be examined is the question of dependency of the applicant on the deceased. Although in the light of the above, the reason that the petitioner is a married son and therefore is ineligible for employment assistance under the Compassionate Employment Scheme cannot be sustained, still fact remains that the application of the petitioner, which is now considered and rejected, was submitted only on 28/07/2007, and the death occurred in 1987. Therefore, the findings of the application is highly belated and beyond the time limit specified is correct and has to be sustained. For this reason, Ext.P5 deserves to be upheld and I do so. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE.