IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 34100 of 2008(H) ------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- HRIDRAMAN.B. THURUTHIYIL VADAKKATHIL, PUTHEN SANKETHAM, KOIVILA P.O.,KOLLAM. BY ADV.MR.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, KOLLAM. 4. THE MAYYANAD GARAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, MAYYANAD, KOLLAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. ANTONY MUKKATH R4 BY ADV. MR.R.S.KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.34100/2008 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE DTD. 17/06/2008 ISSUED BY KOLLAM CORPORATION. EXT.P2: COPY OF APPLICATION DTD. 8/05/2002 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 7/06/2002 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 8/08/2007 IN WP(C) NO.22779/2006. EXT.P5: COPY OF LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE DTD. 16/04/2008 ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM. EXT.P6: COPY OF APPLICATION DTD. 2/06/2008 ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER OF 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 18/08/2008 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 29/09/2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9: COPY OF COMPASSIONATE APPOINT SCHEME ISSUED IN G.O.(P) NO.12/99/P&ARD DTD. 24/05/1999. EXT.P10: COPY OF LETTER NO.61701/J3/2000/G.EDN. DTD. 6/01/2001 OF THE STATE GOVT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.34100/2008-H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the rejection of the application for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme, the petitioner has approached this Court. The short question is whether a married son is disentitled to maintain the application. 2. The petitioner's father was working as Peon in the Mayyanad Grama Panchayat. He died on 23/03/2002. The petitioner filed an application on 08/05/2002 before the third respondent and a further application dated 13/05/2002 before the second respondent requesting to give him appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. He has studied upto S.S.L.C and is eligible for appointment as a Peon. Ext.P3 shows that the Director of Panchayat had issued appropriate direction to the Deputy Director of Panchayat to take action in the matter and to forward proper application for the same. Pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment of this Court, the Tahsildar by Ext.P5 has issued a Legal Heirship Certificate. Ext.P6 is the copy of the application submitted in the prescribed proforma. 3. The reason for rejection stated in Ext.P8 is that a married son is not a dependent within the meaning of the term provided under the Scheme. W.P.(C) No.34100/2008 -:2:- 4. The term dependent is covered under Clause 14(a) of the Compassionate Employment Scheme which is produced as Ext.P9. Therein it is stated that “employment assistance shall be given to the widow/widower, son, daughter in the said order of priority. Son and daughter shall include adopted son and adopted daughter respectively and will rank after son/daughter”. Therefore, there is no specific stipulation that the married son is excluded from the Scheme. 5. Same issue has been considered by this Court in various cases. In Rev.Mother Delphine Mary v.State of Kerala 2002(1)KLT 137 it was held in paragraph 5 that the mere fact that either daughter or son got married does not mean that he/she has lost his claim for appointment under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV-A of K.E.R as well as Rule 9A of Chapter XXIV-A of read with Government Order dated 30/03/1995. In a recent decision of this Court reported in Ashkarali vs. State of Kerala 2009 (1) KLT Short Note 17 (C.No.18), the same question was considered. It was held as follows:- “Irrespective of the marriage, the son or daughter of the deceased employee may have been dependent on the deceased employee, and that, while marriage may change the status of the son/daughter, his or her status as a dependent son or dependent daughter may continue. The mere fact that the son/daughter got married by itself will not indicate that he/she is not eligible for appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme.” W.P.(C) No.34100/2008 -:3:- 6. Apart from the same by Ext.P10, the Government itself has clarified it. It is stated that married son/married daughter may also be considered for the benefit of compassionate Employment Scheme if they are otherwise eligible. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P8 is quashed. 7. The application for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme will be reconsidered in the light of the findings rendered above and appropriate orders will be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms