IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 7383 of 2009(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PREETHA SHAJI KUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.LATE SHAJIKUMAR, RESIDING AT PANAVILAKATHU VEEDU, N.C.C.ROAD, PEROORKADA P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE, TROMBAY, MUMBAI REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 2. THE ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER, BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE, PERSONNEL DIVISION, TROMBAY, MUMBAY. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7383 of 2009 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE SAID LETTER DATED 7.5.08 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.2.08 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF A LETTER DATED 29.9.08 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE SAID LETTER BEARING DATED 16.12.08 (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).7383/2009 ....................... Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that her husband Sri.Shajikumar was a Scientific Officer under the 1st respondent. Shajikumar expired on 30.7.2006. There upon, the petitioner made an application for employment on compassionate grounds. That was considered by the Compassionate Appointment Committee of the 1st respondent and rejection of the application was conveyed to the petitioner by Ext.P1. Two reasons are stated for rejection of her application. One is that the petitioner is in receipt of family pension of Rs.6619/- + Dearness Relief as admissible and have received dues of about Rs.3 Lakhs on the death of her husband. Other reason stated is that the application for Compassionate Appointment was made by the petitioner, after a lapse of 15 months. 2. From the counter affidavit it would appear that when her husband was alive, relationship between the parties was not cordial and they were living separately. In fact the deceased had filed a petition for divorce in the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai, a copy of which is W.P.(C).7383/09 2 Ext.R1(b) where serious allegations were made against the petitioner. It is also stated that the deceased had made a complaint to the Chief Security Officer of the Company, which also discloses that he had filed a police complaint against the petitioner for having threatened him. Irrespective of all that, a reading of the counter affidavit would show that on the death of the petitioner's husband, a total amount of Rs.6,50,762/- was due to be paid to the petitioner and that after recovery of the amount due to BARC Co-operative Credit Society, a sum of Rs.4,32,012/- was paid to the petitioner. It is also seen that she is receiving family pension of Rs.10,975/- + Dearness Relief from time to time which she is entitled to till 30.7.2016 and thereafter, she will be eligible to get normal family pension of Rs.6,585/- + Dearness Relief. It is contended that the Compassionate Appointment Committee of the 1st respondent came to a conclusion that the petitioner is not a person in distress and therefore, she was ineligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. Even if the pendency of the divorce application and the W.P.(C).7383/09 3 complaint made by her husband against the petitioner are brushed aside, fact remains that substantial amounts have been received by the petitioner towards family pension and dearness relief. Necessarily, therefore the conclusion arrived at by the Compassionate Appointment Committee that the petitioner is not a person in distress, cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary warranting interference in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs