IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 36632 of 2004(J) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------------- SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.LATE UDAYAN, EX-GS-48908 N, RESIDING AT PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, NALLANICKAL, ARATTUPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SMT.SABINA JAYAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT, BRDB, B WING 4TH FLOOR, KASHMIR HOUSE, DHQ P.O. NEW DELHI 110 011. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BOARDER ROADS, SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN RING ROAD, DELHI CANTT., NEW DELHI 110 010. 3. THE COMMANDANT, GREF CENTRE, DIGHI CAMP, PUNE 15. 4. THE OFFICER COMMANDING 1623 PNR COY, (GREF)C/O.56 APO. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ, ADDL.CGSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.36632/2004 J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LR.NO.456/08/110/FIR TD. 19/05/2002 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.12701/DEP/DGBR/155/EG2 DTD. 11/07/2002 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.12701/DEP/DGBR/257/EG2 DTD. 6/08/2002 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.12701/1-MP/POK/DGBR/64/EG2 DTD. 8/07/2002 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1456/08/13/EIR DTD. 4/09/2002 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 5/08/2002. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 30/07/2004 IN O.P.NO.31462/2002 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P8: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 5/11/2004 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(A): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 2/12/1992. EXT.R2(B): COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 9/07/2001. EXT.R2(C): COPY OF GREF LETTER DTD.21/07/2001. EXT.R2(D): COPY OF THE GREF LETTER DTD. 11/05/2002. EXT.R2(E): COPY OF THE DOP & T LETTER DTD. 3/12/1999. EXT.R2(F): COPY OF THE GREF LETTER DTD. 4/09/2002. EXT.R2(G): COPY OF THE DOP & T CIRCULAR DTD. 28/11/04. EXT.R2(H): COPY OF DOP & T CIRCULAR DTD. 11/09/03. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss P.N.Ravindran, J. ============== W.P(C).No.36632 of 2004 ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner's father late P.Udayan was a Pioneer in the General Reserve Engineering Force (for short the GREF). He was invalidated out of service on medical grounds on 25.7.1992. He later passed away on 28.1.1996 leaving behind his wife Smt.Kusumam, the petitioner and another son Mr. Anilkumar. By Ext.R2(a) letter dated 2.12.1992, late P.Udayan was directed to sponsor a male member of his family to be considered for employment in the GREF. At that point of time, the petitioner was a minor. 2. After the petitioner attained majority he applied for employment assistance. Ultimately by Ext.P8 order passed on 5.11.2004, his request was rejected on the ground that in view of the policy evidenced by Ext.R2(e) dated 3.12.1999, the application for compassionate employment submitted more than one year after the death of the employee cannot be considered. It is also stated that there are at present no vacancies to accommodate the petitioner. Ext.P8 is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. I have heard Sri. R.Rajasekharan Pillai, the learned counsel WP(C) 36632/04 -: 2 :- appearing for the petitioner and Sri.M.A.Fayaz, the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the official respondents. 4. The petitioner's father passed away on 28.1.1996, The Apex Court has in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others - JT 1994(3) SC 525 held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after the lapse of a reasonable period. In the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court noticed that compassionate appointment is given to enable the bereaved family to tide over the immediate financial difficulties and that it is not a method of recruitment to public service. In the instant case, the petitioner's father passed away on 28.1.1996. By the time the petitioner attained the age of majority, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the Government of India issued Ext.R2(e) office memorandum prescribing a time limit. Therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (supra) and the stipulations in Ext.R2(a) circular, the challenge to Ext.P8 has to fail. Ext.R2(e) clarifies that compassionate appointment can be made only to 5% of the vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in Group 'C' or 'D' posts. Non availability of posts is also another reason stated for rejecting the petitioner's request 5. For the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that the WP(C) 36632/04 -: 3 :- challenge to Ext.P8 is without any merit. However, the learned counsel for the respondents fairly brought to my notice with reference to the averments in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit that in view of Ext.P5 letter, the petitioner can apply as a SON CASE for any suitable post based on his qualifications as and when applications are invited by the GREF. The Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observation. No costs. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 23/7