IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20347 of 2008(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- LALU.T., S/O. LATE THANKAPPAN, RESIDING AT THAYYIL PADINJATTATHIL , PALATHARA, THATTAMALA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI, SMT.SABINA JAYAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE CASHEW WORKERS APEX INDUSTRIAL CO.OP.SOCIETY, REG.NO.IND(ST)-12, PB.262, R.R. BUILDING, CANTONMENT WARD, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE ERAVIPURAM CASHEW WORKERS APEX INDUSTRIAL CO-OP.SOCIETY LTD., ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. R2 BY ADVS. MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR, MR..PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.20347 of 2008-V = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner's father died on 1-6-1993. It is stated that he was employed in a peeling unit of the second respondent. Ext.P1 is filed on 24-11-1999 saying that in 1993 July the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment and that in 1999 July, there was a repeated request in that regard. Following Ext.P1 representation, Exts.P2 and P3 are also of the year 1999. In 2005, the petitioner is shown to have made Ext.P4 representation. In 2008 July, this writ petition is filed seeking a direction for compassionate appointment. The second respondent has placed a counter affidavit stating that it is in financial doldrums and had been remaining closed for many WP(C)20347/2008 -: 2 :- years and is now working to some extent on the basis of Government grant. It is pointed out that it is impossible to make the appointment and that even according to the second respondent, there are 46 applicants waiting appointment on compassionate grounds and the income generated by the business of the second respondent is insufficient even to meet the entitlement of its employees who are now working. At this distance of time, I do not find it necessary for this Court to issue any direction or to compel any appointment on compassionate basis, having regard to the various decisions governing the field. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to get any benefit that the second respondent extends as and when available. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/060209