IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 3458 of 2002(J) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- VASANTHA.S., W/O. LATE SOMAN.A., PARAMKIMAMVILA VEEDU, KANIOYAMKONAM, KUZHIMATHICADU P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF SUPPLIES & TRANSPORT, QUARTER MASTER GENERAL'S BRANCH, ARMY HEADQUARTERS, D.H.Q. P.O., NEW DELHI-110 011. 3. MAJOR GENERAL, ARMY SUPPLY CORPS, HEADQUARTERS, NORTHERN COMMAND (ST),C/O 56 APO. 4. THE COMMANDING OFFICER, 503 ARMY SUPPLY CORPS BATTALION, C/O 56 APO. BY ADV. SRI.PRINCE CHAKRAMPILLY, ADDL.CGSC SRI.THOMASMATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SR.PANEL SMT.MOLY.E.V., CGC THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP.NO.6258/2002 IN OP.NO.3458/2002-J. DISMISSED. 8.2.2008. Sd/- T.R.Ramachandran Nair, Judge. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: Copy of certificate of Marriage issued by the Secretary, Kareepra Grama Panchayat. P2: Copy of Medical certificate of cause of Death dtd.9.6.1998 issued by the Duty Medical Officer, Naval Hospital, Sanjeevani. P3: Copy of letter dtd.2.9.1998 of the 4th respondent. P4: Copy of communication dtd.19.9.1999 of the officer-in-charge ASC Records (MT), Bangalore. P5: Copy of letter dtd.24.8.1999 of the officer-in-charge, ASC Records (MT), Bangalore. P6: Copy of letter dtd.4.11.1999 of the 4th respondent. P7: Copy of letter dtd.8.4.2000 of the 4th respondent to the petitioner. P8: Copy of letter dtd.16.6.2000 of the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent. P9: Copy of letter dtd.27.7.2000 of the Dy. Director of S&T to the 3rd respondent. P10: Copy of letter dtd.23-10-2000 of the 3rd respondent to the petitioner. P11: Copy of the letter dtd.10.12.2000 of the 4th respondent to the petitioner. P12: Copy of judgment dtd.19.9.2001 in OP.No.21428/2001. P13: Copy of letter dtd.15.11.2001 of the 2nd respondent to the petitioner. P14: Copy of Compassionate appointment: speaking order issued by the 2nd respondent. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- Nil. ( true copy ) P.A. TO JUDGE. kvs/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ========================= O.P.No.3458 of 2002-J. ========================= Dated this the 8th day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T The challenge is against the rejection of the application for appointment under the compassionate scheme. The petitioner is the widow of late Sri.A.Soman who died while in Military service. The petitioner belongs to scheduled caste community. Her late husband was working as Sepoy in Jammu at the time of his death. The petitioner had passed SSLC and also Typewriting English Higher and Typewriting Malayalam Lower. The petitioner had been moving the authorities even from the earliest point of time to get appointment under the relevant scheme. Exts.P6 and P7 are communications which show that the application was being processed. Ultimately the petitioner was issued with Ext.P11 wherein she was informed that the case for employment even O.P.No.3458 of 2002-J. 2 though considered sympathetically but it cannot be acceded to as the case lacks merit. This was the subject matter of an earlier original petition filed by her as OP.No.21428/2001. This Court disposed of the matter in the light of the stand taken by the respondent that the case will be reconsidered on merits. Thereafter by Ext.P13, again the application was rejected. 2. The rejection is mainly for the reason that there is no vacancy of Group-C in the 5% quota prescribed for compassionate appointment and that the family of the deceased had received an amount of Rs.5,15,730/- as terminal benefits and the widow is also getting Rs.1,695/- p.m. + D.A. as family pension. Ext.P14 is the relevant scheme. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasons stated in Ext.P13 for rejecting the application are not sustainable. The learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner had filed the application in the year 1998 and the delay occurred on the part of the respondents and therefore the reason that there is no vacancy in Group-C in the 5% quota prescribed for O.P.No.3458 of 2002-J. 3 compassionate appointment cannot be accepted. 4. Respondents 1 to 4 have filed their counter affidavit justifying the action. In Ext.P14, clause (2) relates to the stipulations for filling up the vacancies under the scheme. Clause (d) states that even in the most deserving case, offer of appointment can be made only if stipulated vacancy for compassionate appointment is available in turn and other eligibility conditions are fulfilled. Vacancy meant for appointment on compassionate grounds is to be available within one year and is also to fall within the stipulated 5% ceiling of total vacancies for direct recruitment quota in a Group 'C' or 'D' Civilian post as the case may be within own Department only. In this case Ext.P13 shows that there is no vacancy in Group C in the 5% quota prescribed for Civilian appointment. This is in consonance with the relevant clauses of Ext.P14. Therefore, it cannot be said that the rejection of the application is unreasonable or arbitrary. Further, going by Ext.P13, the family was in receipt of terminal benefits and the widow is also getting Rs.1,695/- p.m. + D.A. as family pension. O.P.No.3458 of 2002-J. 4 Therefore, it is not a case where the petitioner is living in poverty. For this reason also it cannot be said that the stand taken is so unreasonable warranting interference in these proceedings. The Original Petition is therefore dismissed. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-