IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 877 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.1039/2009 Dated 20/01/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------- N.V.ISHAC, S/O.ABOOBAKER (LATE), AGED 30 YEARS, BAITHUL ISHAC, POST KOLATHARA SARADA MANDIRAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS' CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SMT.K.SHEREEFA, VALIYAPADAM PARAMBA, Y.M.R.C.ROAD, MEENCHANTHA, ARTS COLLEGE P.O., KOZHIKODE. 3. N.V.HUSSAIN JAMAL, VALIYAPADAM PARAMBA, Y.M.R.C.ROAD, MEENCHANTHA, ARTS COLLEGE P.O., KOZHIKODE. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC FOR R1. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------- W.A. No. 877 OF 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. His father was an employee under the 1st respondent. He died in harness on 30.12.2002. The petitioner claims, he was eligible for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme by virtue of Rule 188A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. The petitioner had a stepmother and a stepbrother. There were disputes between them which led to negotiations concerning apportionment of the terminal benefits of the deceased employee. So, there was some delay in submitting application for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. It submitted only on 18.3.2006. As per Clause (c) of Rule 188A, the application should have been submitted within one year of death of the employee, that is, before 30.12.2003. In the mean time, the petitioner's stepbrother attained majority and he also submitted an application for employment. The rival claims of W.A.No.877/2009 2 the petitioner and his stepbrother were considered by the 1st respondent and as per Ext.P5 order dated 10.6.2008, the appellant's claim was rejected and his stepbrother's claim, who is the 3rd respondent herein, was upheld. Impugning that order, the writ petition was filed. 2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the application was submitted by the petitioner belatedly. The appellant raised a contention before the learned Single Judge that he has already submitted Ext.P3 representation on 3.3.2003, which contains a request for grant of employment under the dying-in-harness scheme. But, the learned Single Judge took the view that the said representation cannot be treated as a representation claiming appointment, also. So, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this Court may take a liberal view and find that there was valid ground for the delay in submitting Ext.P4 application for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. Alternatively, W.A.No.877/2009 3 it is submitted that Ext.P3, which was submitted in time, contains a prayer for grant of terminal benefits, which include employment on compassionate ground also. Rule 188A (c) reads as follows: “(188A):- Employment assistance to dependants of employee dying in harness :- It shall be competent for the committee of a Society to appoint a person, who is a dependant of an employee who dies while in service, subject to the following conditions, namely:- (a) ....................... (c) the application for appointment under this scheme shall be made by the dependant within one year from the date of death of employee. Where the dependant happens to be a minor, the application shall be submitted within a period of three years from the date of his/her attaining the age of majority.” 4. Going by the above provision, the appellant should have submitted the application within one year. We find there is no provision for condoning delay. So, even if, the delay was justified on the facts of the case, the managing committee, which is authorised to grant appointment on compassionate ground, has no power to condone the delay. Secondly, the portion in Ext.P3 relied on by the appellant does not mention about employment under the dying-in-harness scheme. The relevant W.A.No.877/2009 4 portion of Ext.P3 relied on by the appellant reads as follows: “E.P.F., Gratuity, Service Pay, Bonus and other Terminal benefits on his death are payable to his legal heirs in accordance with the Personnel Law applicable to him. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * As such I humbly request you to arrange for the disbursement of 7/16 of all dues benefits and other payments secured on the death of Sri.Late.N.V.Aboobacker.” Going by the above quoted portion, no man in his senses will say that the request quoted above will include the request for appointment on compassionate ground also. In the result, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps