IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5479 of 2008(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JOICE KURIAN, THIRUVALLA HOUSE, ANGADICKAL NORTH.P.O., (VIA), KAIPATOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST-689 648. BY ADV. MR.V.PHILIP MATHEWS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARTY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.5479/2008 B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF DEATH ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTH & DEATH, PATHANAMTHITTA DTD. 2/03/2006. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.B15.5158/06/K.DIS. DTD.11/9/2006 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, THIRUVALLA. EXT.P3: COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.61701/J3/2000/G.EDN. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 06/01/2001 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. TO DPI. EXT.P4: COPY OF APPLICATION DTD. 14/11/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 15/10/2007 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 26/10/07 ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P5 ISSUED BY PRIVATE SECRETARY TO CHIEF MINISTER. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.S4-19325/2007 DTD. 04/12/2007 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 5479 of 2008-B - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT The short question that arises herein is whether the rejection of the application of the petitioner for appointment under the compassionate employment scheme on the ground that the married son/daughter is excluded from the compassionate employment scheme, is correct or not. The petitioner is the daughter of late V.M. Mathew, who died on 28.2.2006 while employed as Part-time Sweeper in Koipuram Krishi Bhavan. He joined Government service on 18.7.1978. Apart from the petitioner, the deceased had left behind her mother and four other daughters. It is stated that the mother is under the care and attention of the petitioner and her husband has no avocation. It is pointed out that the petitioner and her mother are not employed and the family is in destitute circumstances. The entire retirement benefits which were received, were utilised to pay off the debts of the petitioner's father. Major part of the family pension is also being utilised to pay off the debts. 2. After the submission of application as there was no response from the respondents, the petitioner had been filing separate representations. wpc 5479/2008 2 Finally, by Ext.P7 the District Collector informed her that the Government, as per letter dated 19.10.2007 informed that married son/daughter is excluded from compassionate employment scheme, and thus is not eligible under the Scheme. 3. The petitioner is relying upon Ext.P3 Government letter dated 6.1.2001 and a decision of a learned Single Judge of this court in Ashkarali v. State of Kerala (2009 (1) KLT SN 17 (Case No.18)). In Ext.P3, in reply to the Director of Public Instruction, the Government clarified that married son/daughter may also be considered for the benefit of the Compassionate Employment Scheme, if they are otherwise eligible. In Ashkarali's case (2009 (1) KLT SN 17), it was held thus: “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. The mere fact that the son/daughter got married by itself will not indicate that he/she is not eligible for appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme.” 4. In the light of the above legal position, the matter will have to be examined afresh. The eligibility of the petitioner under the Scheme has to be considered on the merits. Therefore, Ext.P7 is quashed. There will be a wpc 5479/2008 3 direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme on the merits and pass appropriate orders within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/