IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 6819 of 2006(J) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SMITHA K.THOMAS, D/O.LATE K.C.THOMAS, AGED 27 YEARS, KOORKAPARAMBIL, KURICHY, KOTTAYAM-686 549. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SAINIK WELFARE), SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF SAINIK WELFARE, VIKAS BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE ZILLA SAINIK WELFARE OFFICER, ZILLA SAINIK WELFARE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ANTON Y MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.6819 of 2006 (J) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T One Mr.Reji K.Thomas, a Soldier, met with an accident on 16/12/1988 while on duty and succumbed to the injuries. Fact that the death was attributable to service is certified in Ext.P3. At that time, Ext.P4 Government Order issued by the 1st respondent provided for employment assistance to one of the dependents of the deceased. Accordingly, Mr.Cherian K Thomas, brother of the deceased, applied for employment assistance. He was pursuing the claim before the State Government as also before the Central Government, and as per the pleadings he got employment under the compassionate appointment scheme of the Central Government in 1992. 2. Thereafter, an application was made by the petitioner, a sister of the deceased, for employment assistance. In the meanwhile, the Government issued Ext.P8 order dated 27/07/1990 superseding Ext.P4 and confining the benefit to the dependents of WP(C) No.6819/2006 -2- those killed/missing/disabled in action and in operation areas. In other words, by Ext.P8, the dependents of soldiers died in accident were removed from the purview of the scheme for compassionate appointment of the 1st respondent. As a result of Ext.P8, the claim made by the petitioner was declined. It is this order which is under challenge. 3. Contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if her brother who had applied under Ext.P4 Government Order was given employment in time, she could have pursued her claim for appointment under the Central Government. It is stated that it is because of the application made by her brother was kept pending and delayed that she could not claim either before the Central Government or before the State Government before issuing Ext.P8. I am not impressed by this contention. Admittedly, it was the petitioner's brother who made an application before the State Government for the benefit of Ext.P4. At that time, according to the petitioner, a dependent was also eligible to claim appointment under the Central Government and therefore, if she were interested, she could have pursued her claim before the WP(C) No.6819/2006 -3- Central Government, which she did not do. Consequently, delay, if any, at the State level could not have caused prejudice to the petitioner in pursuing her claim. That apart, the petitioner made application to the State Government only in 1992, and by then Ext.P8 Government order was issued on 28/07/1990, and therefore, her application could have been considered only in terms of Ext.P8. Since she was ineligible, the petitioner cannot claim appointment. In that view of the matter, the State Government cannot be faulted for declining the benefit to the petitioner. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg