IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1129 of 2010(S) --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.21487/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS IN WPC.21487/2008 ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MRS.CHANDINI SAM,WIFE OF LATE DR.VINU.V, AGED 41 YEARS, P.C.NO.11/918, N.R.A.12, GANABHARANAM ROAD, NALANDA KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MAHIMA.V.C(MINOR),D/O.LATE DR.VINU.V, AGED 9 YEARS,REP.BY CHANDINI SAM.S.P(MOTHER), P.C.11/918,N.R.A-12, GANABHARANAM ROAD, NALANDA, KOWDIAR PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. MARIA(MINOR),D/O.LATE DR.VINU.V, AGED 5 YEARS,REP.BY CHANDINI SAM.S.P(MOTHER), GANABHARANAM ROAD,NALANDA, KOWDIAR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR (RAVIPURAM) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 2 IN WPC NO.21487/2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SRI.MANOJ JOSHI.I.A.S, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,HONOURABLE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT ,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DR.JEEVAN,AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, THE HONOURABLE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ Cont.Case (C) NO. 1129 OF 2010 (S) ========================= Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T First petitioner is the wife and the second and third petitioners are the children of late Dr.Vinu.V. Dr.Vinu had a premature death. An enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Director of Health Services and report dated 18/8/07 recommending compensation for the death while in service was submitted. However, the claim for compensation was rejected on the ground that the same was not admissible as per the rules. 2. This order was challenged in WP(C) No.21487/08 and the writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 20th of October, 2009 setting aside the order on the ground that Government should do the needful and that, in the circumstances, absence of Rule by itself, cannot be a reason for rejecting the claim. The matter was ordered to be reconsidered. 3. Accordingly, the Government reconsidered the matter and issued Annexure B order dated 4/6/2010. Para 4 to 6 being relevant, reads as under:- 4. The Hon'ble High Court, while disposing of the WP (C), vide its judgment read as 3rd paper above, set aside COC No. 1129/10 :2 : Ext.P4, and directed the 1st respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioners for compensation for the untimely death of Dr.Vinu.V. The court also ordered that the matter shall be reconsidered and orders in that behalf shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months of production of a copy of the judgment. Government represented by the Secretary (Health) is the first respondent in the case. 5. Government have examined the case in detail with all connected rules and documents, including the report of the Deputy District Medical Officer (H) Ernakulam who conducted an enquiry into the death of Dr.Vinu.V. The wife of the deceased is working and the children are minor. All other reliefs including eligible financial assistance due to a deceased Government employee has been extended to the family and one among his minor children will become eligible for employment assistance under Compassionate Employment Scheme when they attains eighteen years of age. 6. The enquiry officer has reported that the multi organ failure was probably the end result of some sort of infection, the cause of which could not be revealed by the tests available at that time in our state. However, it has not been established that the death of Dr.Vinu was due to disease he acquired from the patients while on duty. Government cannot grant compensation in such cases and order that the request for financial compensation/grant of house site, by the petitioners is rejected. It is complaining that Annexure B order discloses disobedience of the directions in the judgment, this contempt petition has been filed. 4. 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The efforts which he took in compliance with the judgment are reflected in COC No. 1129/10 :3 : para 2 of the counter affidavit, the relevant portion of which reads as under:- There is no provision or rule to provide compensation as financial benefit against death of Government employees. But the scheme under Compassionate Employment Scheme is the benefit allowable to the family of the employee who died in harness. In addition to this a higher rate of pension upto the period till retirement of the employee, had he continued in service is also allowable as per rules. It is submitted that there is no other provision for compensation other than the same explained above to the family of the employees who die in harness. In the circumstances, the request of the petitioners for financial compensation has been examined and a decision has been arrived at a higher level to reject the claim since there is no provision to allow the same. The orders thus arrived was issued as the Government Order in Annexure B. It is submitted that this respondent has taken all efforts to re-examine the case as directed by this Hon'ble court in its true spirit and circulated the file to the Chief Minister for taking orders. From this, it may kindly be noted that there has not been any laxity on the part of this respondent in complying the direction of this Hon'ble Court and the orders issued in Annexure B is within the rules and provisions available in the matter and also after taking orders at higher level. 5. Thus it is obvious that, it is not a case where the 1st respondent rejected the claim without adverting to the directions in the judgment. Further, the financial position of the family, the employment status of his wife, pension that is paid etc., were also duly adverted to. That apart, before the order was passed, the file was even circulated to the Chief Minister. COC No. 1129/10 :4 : In such circumstances, I am not persuaded to think that this is a case where there is wilful disobedience of the directions in the judgment. On the other hand, if at all the petitioners are aggrieved, they will have to work out their remedies against Annexure B order. In that view, I close the contempt petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp