IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 1618 of 2005(B) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.6562/2002 Dated 30/03/2005 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------- N.G.SADANANDAN NAIR, RESIDING AT LAKSHMI SADANAM, MEMANA, OACHIRA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NATIONAL AIRPORTS DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (PERS), AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN FOR R1 SRI.V.SANTHARAM FOR R1 SRI.K.G.MOHANDAS PAI FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------- W.A.No. 1618 OF 2005 -------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. The respondents were the respondents in the writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The appellant's father Sri.Gangadharan Nair was working as a Traffic Hand under the respondents. While so, the said Gangadharan Nair died in harness on 23.5.1993 leaving behind his widow and four children. The appellant applied for employment under the dying-in-harness scheme. The said application was rejected by Ext.P3 order. This Court by Ext.P4 judgment directed the respondents to reconsider the said application. The matter was reconsidered and Ext.P5 speaking order was passed, again rejecting his claim. The appellant filed Ext.P6 Review Petition. That was also rejected by Ext.P7. Therefore, the writ petition was filed, challenging Exts.P5 and P7 and also seeking consequential reliefs. The respondents W.A.No.1618/2005 2 resisted the application by filing a counter affidavit. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal. 2. Ext.P5 contains the reasons for rejecting the appellant's application. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows: “The case for providing employment assistance to Sh.N.G.Sadanandan Nair, S/o.Late Sh.M.Gangadharan Nair has been reconsidered as per the directions of the Hon'ble Court. The applications at Ext.P1 and P2 filed by the petitioner have also been considered and it is observed that: 1. Sh.M.Gangadharan Nair, Traffic Hand expired at the age of 59 years and 8 months i.e. just 4 months before his superannuation; 2. that the family of the deceased comprised of wife, 2 unmarried sons and 1 married son and 1 married daughter with one son of Sh.M.Gangadharan Nair is employed in Army as per P/1(2); 3. that the family is in receipt of family pension amounting to RS.375/- p.m.(now Rs.1275+D.A); 4. that the family is also having immovable property, the income from W.A.No.1618/2005 3 which is having Rs.25050 p.a. besides land; 5. that as per the guidelines for employment, the same is considered where family is in indigent circumstances and needs immediate assistance. Taken (sic-Taking) into consideration the Committee has opined that this is not a fit case to provide employment.” 3. The learned Single Judge found that the 4th reason given for rejecting the appellant's application was valid. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, the learned Single Judge said that the decision of the respondents to reject his application for employment under the dying-in-harness scheme cannot be said to be arbitrary warranting interference by this Court. 4. The appellant submitted that the property from which the income was derived by the family was sold for the treatment of his mother. She died on 7.6.2000. Therefore, the ground No.4 for rejecting the appellant's application no longer survives. So, the appellant prayed for allowing the Writ Appeal. W.A.No.1618/2005 4 5. We notice that, at the time of death of Sri.Gangadharan Nair, out of the four children, two were already married and living separately. Among the remaining two children one was employed and the appellant alone was remaining unemployed. Apart from the family pension, the family was having a family income of Rs.25,050/- per annum. Therefore, the rejection of the appellant's claim for employment cannot be said to be improper or arbitrary. We agree with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge of this point that the recent sale of the property which generated the income will not make the appellant eligible for employment assistance. The situation as on 25.3.1993 is relevant for the purpose of determining the claim for employment assistance. In the result, the appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps