IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 28932 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONERS(S): --------------------- 1. ALEX M.MURICKEN, CHANDITHURUTHEL HOUSE,MUTTUCHIRA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. PRAVEEN S., ONIYAPPURATH HOUSE,ELANJI P.O.-686 665, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. RENJUMON P.R., PULIKKUNNEL HOUSE,LAKKATTOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, ARYASALA P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, MARKET ROAD,ERNAKULAM. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED, P.B.NO.2263,SASTHAKRIPA OFFICE COMPLEX, SASTHAMANGALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-10. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS,SC,K.A.W.F.B FOR R2-3 SC FOR B.CORP. SRI. ELVIN PETER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.28932 OF 2009 (J) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners claim to be dependents of deceased Abkari Workers. 2. According to the petitioners on the abolition of abkari shops, considering the plight of the abkari workers and their dependents schemes were framed and one such scheme was to provide employment to the dependents of deceased abkari workers under the 4th respondent. 3. As a part thereof Ext.P1 notification was issued by the Kerala Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Board inviting applications from the dependents like the petitioners who were between the age of 18 and 38. Petitioners submit that in response to Ext.P1, they had submitted Ext.P2 to Ext.P4 applications. It is their specific case that as on the date of notification, viz. 28.7.2005, they had attained 18 years . 4. It is stated that there has not been any progress in the matter and even Exts.P5 to P7 representations submitted by them to respondents 2 and 4, have not evoked any response. It is in WPC .No.28932/09 :2 : these circumstances the writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respondents to extent the benefit of appointment pursuant to Ext.P1. 5. Standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submits that as on the date of notification, the petitioners had not attained the age of 18 years and that it was therefore that their candidature was not considered. Standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that in response to the advertisements issued applications were received and a list of eligible 251 persons were furnished by respondents 2 and 3 and that appointments were made by the said list. 6. As already noticed, the case of the petitioners is that as on the date of notification they had attained the age of 18 years and therefore, were eligible to be considered in terms of Ext.P1. It is evident from the submissions made on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 that petitioners were considered ineligible a according to them, they were below the minimum age prescribed in Ext.P1. This factual dispute necessarily calls for an examination by respondents 2 and 3 as to whether, on the materials produced along with the application made by the petitioners, they had WPC .No.28932/09 :3 : attained 18 years, the minimum age prescribed in Ext.P1. Therefore, on such examination, if the petitioners are found to have attained 18 years, necessarily the matter should be reconsidered in the light of the Government Orders that are issued governing appointment on compassionate ground. It is directed that on such examination if respondents 2 and 3 find that the petitioners were eligible to be sponsored to the 4th respondent, needful shall be done. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment before respondents 2 and 3 for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/