IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 21050 of 2004(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAYASREE W/O.EX-SAPPER UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, KEEZHATHIL VEEDU, EDAKKAD P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT,NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR FOF EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, (DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING) EX-SERVICEMEN CELL, 24/3 KUNDAN MANSION, AZAFALI ROAD, MEW DELHI -110002. 3. THE SENIOR RECORD OFFICER, ABHILEKH KARYALAYA, RECORDS OFFICE, MADRAS ENGINEERING GROUP, BANGALORE-560042. ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1,R2,R3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 21050/2004. --------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF DISCHARGE DT. 17-9-1995.. EXT.P2 NOTIFICATION DT. 21-2-1981. EXT.P3 APPLICATION DT. 17-9-2003. EXT.P4 LETTER DT. 19-6-2004. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 21050 of 2004 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 21st November, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the wife of a former soldier in Indian Army, who was a member of the Indian Peace Keeping Force sent to Sri Lanka. According to the petitioner, because of the stress and strain of of military service, especially in Sri Lanka, her husband lost his mental balance, as a result of which after a stint of hospitalisation in the military hospital, he was finally invalided out of military service. The petitioner submits that in view of the same, the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment. The contention of the petitioner is that the Supreme Court has in the decision of Sivamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2008(3) KLT 911 (SC) upheld the right of dependents of Government servants who lost their employment on account of medical invalidation. 2. In answer to the same, the Central Government counsel, with the help of a counter affidavit, which is not on record, a copy of which has been handed over to me for perusal, submits that as per the Ministry of India UO Note No. 1223/US(Emp)/D(Res) dated 16th June, 1987, only dependents of service personnel who was invalided with and over 50% disability attributable to military service are eligible for employment assistance on compassionate grounds. According to the respondents, the petitioner's husband was invalided out of service with 20% disability and therefore the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate employment. It is further submitted that only 5% vacancies are set apart for this purpose, that too, only for dependents of those individuals who died in harness/killed in action and disabled soldier. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. As far as the decision cited by the petitioner is concerned, I do not think that, that can be applied in the petitioner's case. That is W.P.C. No. 21050/04. -: 2 :- a case where the Supreme Court upheld a compassionate employment scheme wherein dependents of medically invalided Government servants were given the benefit of compassionate employment. Here, the validity of such a scheme is not in question. The only question is whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate employment because of the invalidation from military service of her husband with 20% medical disability. The petitioner has not produced any material which would enable the petitioner to claim such an employment. On the other hand, the respondents would contend that as per the scheme available, only dependants of persons who are invalided out of service with 50% or more disability is eligible for compassionate employment. The petitioner could not, with any material, controvert the said contention. She also does not dispute the fact that her husband was invalided out of military service with only 20% disability. That being so, the petitioner has not made out a case for eligibility for compassionate employment. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/