IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 29060 of 2007(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AUGUSTINE JOHN, S/O.LATE C.NESAN AGED 34, PANAYAKORATH HOUSE, CHITTAZHA, VATTAPPARA P.O., MARUTHOOR, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN SRI.PRIJITH P. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE (ANIMAL HUSBANDRY F DEPT.), TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, VIKAS BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.29060/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF LETTER DT 5.9.05 ISSUED BY R2. P2 COPY OF INCOME TAX CERTIFICATE DT 5.10.05. P3 COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DT 18.10.05 ISSUED BY R2. P4 COPY OF LETTER DT 31.7.06. P5 COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DT 22.11.2000. P6 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC.27911/06 DT 26.10.06. P7 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 9.11.06. P8 CO ORDER DT 5.7.07. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 29060 OF 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Sri. S.Sreekumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. P.Nandakumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner’s father late Nesan was a casual employee in the office of the second respondent. Though he had served for a long term of 32 years, he was not regularised in service. He died on 14.8.1998 leaving behind his wife and the petitioner, his only son. After the petitioner’s father passed away, he moved the respondents seeking employment assistance under the dying-in-harness scheme. That claim was forwarded by the Director of Animal Husbandry to the Government along with Ext.P3 letter dated 18.10.2005. In the said letter, the Director of Animal Husbandry had specifically referred to the fact that on an earlier occasion the dependant of a casual employee was given appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. The reference evidently was to Ext.P5 Government order dated 22.11.2000. The Government however W.P.(C) No. 29060/07 2 rejected the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment on the ground that there is no provision to give compassionate appointment to the dependant of a casual employee. The decision of the Government was communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P4 letter dated 31.7.2006. The petitioner thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.27911 of 2006 in this Court wherein the petitioner conceded, relying on Ext.P5 Government order, that he has been discriminated against. This Court, taking note of the said submission, disposed of the said writ petition with a direction that in the event of the petitioner filing a petition for review of Ext.P4, producing along with it a copy of Ext.P5, the Government shall consider the same and pass orders thereon. The petitioner accordingly moved the Government by filing Ext.P7 review petition. By Ext.P8 order dated 5.7.2007, the Government rejected the said request on the ground that there is no provision to give compassionate appointment to dependants of casual employees. Exts.P4 and P8 are under challenge in this writ petition wherein the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give him employment assistance under the dying-in-harness scheme. W.P.(C) No. 29060/07 3 3. The petitioner challenges Exts.P4 and P8 on the ground that they are arbitrary and discriminatory. He contends that a person who is similarly situated has been given compassionate appointment by Ext.P5 Government order dated 22.11.2000. The petitioner also submits that his father had a long service of 32 years and that all his contemporaries were regularised in service. He also points out that the father of the beneficiary of Ext.P5 Government order was also working as a casual employee and had not been regularised in service. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit justifying the stand of the Government. It is stated that the employment assistance was given to Smt. L.Rani, the beneficiary of Ext.P5 Government order, as a special case exercising the discretionary power of the Government and that it is not necessary to extend the said benefit to the petitioner as he is not similarly situated. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. The fact that the petitioner’s father and the father of Smt. L.Rani, the beneficiary of Ext.P5 Government order, were both casual employees and had not been regularised in service is not disputed. The petitioner’s father W.P.(C) No. 29060/07 4 commenced service in the year July 1966. He died while in service as a casual employee on 14.8.1998, after 32 years of service. Late Johnson, father of Smt. L.Rani, the beneficiary to Ext.P5 Government order, commenced casual service in the year 1979 and he died on 30.10.1998. A reading of Ext.P5 discloses that at the time when Sri. Johnson passed away, which was two months after the death of the petitioner’s father, steps had been taken to regularise thirty four casual employees in service. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s father and late Johnson were among the thirty four employees. It was taking note of this fact that the Government by Ext.P5 order granted compassionate appointment to Smt. L.Rani, daughter of late Johnson. Late Johnson had served as a casual employee for a period of 21 years whereas the petitioner’s father had served the second respondent for a period of more than 32 years. Apart from merely stating that there is no reason to extend the benefit given to Smt. L.Rani to the petitioner the Government have not given any reason justifying the different stand taken by them in the case of the petitioner. The respondents have no case that the petitioner comes from affluent circumstances. They have no case that the petitioner’s W.P.(C) No. 29060/07 5 father was not entitled to be regularised in service. In my opinion, no grounds have been made out warranting the different treatment given to the petitioner when the Government have in the case of another employee who was similarly situated given the benefit of compassionate appointment to his daughter. I am therefore persuaded to hold that the petitioner has been discriminated against for no justifiable reason. I, accordingly, allow this writ petition, set aside Exts.P4 and P8 and direct the Government to issue orders giving employment assistance to the petitioner under the dying-in-harness scheme, having regard to the qualifications possessed by him. Orders in that regard shall be issued within four months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the first respondent. The Government shall as far as possible accommodate the petitioner in Thiruvananthapuram district. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps W.P.(C) No. 29060/07 6