IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20587 of 2009(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- BABY SIJI S., W/O. ANIL KUMAR T., AGED 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT PANACKAL HOUSE, PUNNAPRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.SAJITH KUMAR V. MR.HAREESH.M MR.RINOY JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY OF GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, THE INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P. NANDAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 20587/2009-P APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES APPLICATION OF COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT SUBMITTED ON 29/08/2006 FORWARDED BY DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE ALAPPUZHA. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.11260/D1/2007/H & FWD DATED 24/03/2007 ISSUED ON THE BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 05/06/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITION BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.45958/D1/2007/H AND FWD DATED 22/04/208 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE R1. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.21476/D1/2009/H AND FWD DATED 18/06/2009 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE R1. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 20587 OF 2009 --------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri. V.Sajith Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. P.Nandakumar, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner's mother, who was working as Medical Officer in the Indian Systems of Medicine Department passed away while in service on 11.4.2006. The petitioner thereupon applied to the respondents for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. Ext.P1 application submitted by her in that regard was duly forwarded by the District Medical Officer, Indian Systems of Medicine, Alappuzha, to the Government for consideration. By Ext.P2 letter dated 24.3.2007 the Government informed the Director, Indian Systems of Medicine, that since the petitioner is the married daughter of the deceased employee she is not entitled to be appointed under the dying-in-harness scheme. The petitioner thereupon filed a representation dated 15.10.2007 before the Government. By Ext.P4 letter dated 22.4.2008 the Government reiterated its stand in Ext.P2 WPC No.20587/09 2 and informed the petitioner that as she is married, she is not entitled to employment assistance under the dying-in-harness scheme. The petitioner thereupon filed Ext.P3 representation dated 5.6.2008 before the Government seeking review of Ext.P4. The said request was rejected by Ext.P5. Exts.P2, P4 and P5 are under challenge in this writ petition wherein the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider her application for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme and pass orders thereon expeditiously. 3. A reading of Exts.P2, P4 and P5 indicates that the petitioner's application for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme was rejected on the short ground that as she is married, she is not eligible to be considered for appointment under the dying-in- harness scheme. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on the Division Bench judgments of this court in Rev.Mother, Delphine Mary Vs. State Of Kerala (2002 (1) KLT 137) and St.Ignatius High School Vs. State of Kerala (2005 (3) KLT 1000) contended that married daughters/sons cannot be denied employment under the dying-in-harness scheme, if they were WPC No.20587/09 3 dependent on the deceased employee. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice letter No.61701/J3/2000/G.Edn. dated 6.1.2001 sent by the Secretary to Government, General Education Department to the Director of Public Instruction, clarifying that married son/daughter is also eligible to be considered for appointment under the compassionate employment scheme, if they are otherwise eligible. 4. In the instant case the pleadings disclose and it is not disputed that the petitioner's application for compassionate employment under the dying-in-harness scheme was rejected on the short ground that, as the married daughter of the deceased employee, she cannot seek employment assistance under the dying- in-harness scheme. This Court has in the decisions referred to above held that irrespective of marriage, the son or daughter of the deceased employee may have been dependent on the deceased employee, and that, while marriage may change the status of the son/daughter, his or her status as a dependent son or dependent daughter may continue. It was held that the mere fact that the son/daughter got married by itself will not indicate that he/she is not WPC No.20587/09 4 eligible for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. In the light of the authoritative pronouncements of this Court in the aforesaid decisions, the decision taken by the Government and communicated to the petitioner in Exts.P2,P4 and P5 cannot be sustained. In the result Ext.P2, P3 and P6 are quashed and the respondents are directed to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner, after examining whether she was dependent on her mother, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Government shall after orders are passed, communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner expeditiously. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps WPC No.20587/09 5