IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3447 of 2008(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. AIDED PRIMARY TEACHER'S CO-OP.SOCIETY LTD. NO.R.379, PALACE ROAD, SOUTH CHALAKUDY, PIN-680 307, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SMT.BAIJU JACOB. 2. THE PRESIDENT, AIDED PRIMARY TEACHER'S CO-OP.SOCIETY LTD. NO.R.379, PALACE ROAD, SOUTH CHALAKUDY, PIN-680 307. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN NUMPELI (JUNIOR) SRI.P.V.PAULSON RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 2. MS.GLAXY, W/O.AJAYAKUMAR, MEPPILLY HOUSE, KUTTIKADU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ - R2 SRI.RESMITHA R.CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.3447/2008 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 7/12/05. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE SAID LETTER DTD. 4/08/06 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 24/11/07 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 6/12/07 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 11/1/08 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. NIL SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20/10/03 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN FAVOUR OF SMT.C.K.SHEELA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(A): COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DIARY OF THE SOCIETY. EXT.R2(B): COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 17/11/2007 CONSISTING OF A LIST OF EMPLOYEES. EXT.R2(C): COPY OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE SOCIETY TOGETHER WITH DETAILS REGARDING THE PROFIT FOR VARIOUS YEARS PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R2(D): COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY SRI.AJAYAKUMAR T.MEPPILLY UNDER RULE 188A OF THE KERALA CO-OP. SOCIETIES RULES. EXT.R2(E): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 27/02/1998 TOGETHER WITH COPY OF RESOLUTION DTD. 11/05/1996. EXT.R2(F): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 17/02/1999 TOGETHER WITH RESOLUTION DTD. 13/02/1999. EXT.R2(G): COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DTD. 19/12/2005. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.3447 OF 2008 & I.A.No.8000/2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Maggi, while serving the first petitioner, a co-operative society, died on 1-1-1996. Following that, her son Sri.Ajayakumar applied for appointment on compassionate grounds, invoking the provisions as per Rule 188(A) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as “Rules”. The society rejected that claim in May 1996, even going by Ext.R2(e). Even if, I assume that the refusal of such relief to Sri.Ajayakumar was communicated only on 27-2-1998 as per Ext.R2(e), it needs to be noticed that Sri.Ajayakumar did not, thereafter, challenge that decision before any appropriate authority including the Government or this Court. 2. Thereafter, the second respondent herein, the wife of Sri.Ajayakumar, applied, with the aid of Ext.R2(g) affidavit dated 19-12-2005, staking claim for appointment under Rule 188(A) of the Rules on account of demise of her mother -in-law Maggi, who died on 1-1-1996. By the impugned orders, the society stands directed to appoint the second respondent. W.P.(C) No.3447/08 - 2 - 3. The petitioners contend that daughter-in-law is not a dependent going by the provisions of Rule 188(A) of the Rules; there was no understanding or consensus between the parties, which were actually agreed upon as stated in the impugned orders and that the society cannot be compelled to appoint the second respondent under Rule 188(A) of the Rules referable to the demise of her mother-in-law Maggi on 1-1-1996. 4. Rule 188(A) of the Rules stand with an explanation that for the purpose of that rule, “dependent” means “any member of the family of a deceased employee of the society; has no independent means of livelihood and who was dependent on the earnings of the deceased employee at the time of his/her death for his/her maintenance” and “family” means and include the relative of the deceased employee in the order of priority indicated in that explanation. The daughter-in-law is not a relative, going by the list of relatives included in terms of family going by that explanation. 5. That apart, and more importantly, the question is as to whether the second respondent could claim that she was W.P.(C) No.3447/08 - 3 - dependent on the earnings of the deceased employee at the time of her death. During the course of this case, the second respondent was directed to file an affidavit to disclose the date of her marriage. Following that, an affidavit dated 16-6-2008 was filed by the second respondent stating her marriage was on 28- 12-1998. This means that the second respondent married the son of deceased Maggi nearly three years after the demise of Maggi on 1-1-1996. For one thing, the second respondent was not the daughter-in-law of Maggi at the time of demise of the latter. She also could not have claimed to be a person dependent on the deceased employee at the time of her death. Therefore, statutory authority could direct appointment of the second respondent on account of demise of Maggi. 6. Faced with the aforesaid situations, Ajayakumar has filed an application seeking impleadment to contend that the refusal to appoint him is contrary to law and his appointment should be considered even if the second respondent was not to be appointed. As already noticed, Sri.Ajayakumar's mother Maggi died on 1-1-1996. We are now more than 12 years thereafter. Not only that, the claim of Sri.Ajayakumar stood rejected and W.P.(C) No.3447/08 - 4 - communicated at least in 1998. No action as is expected, followed, challenging such refusal. The fact that the relatives had conceded to the second respondent's application itself is indicative that Sri.Ajayakumar cannot pursue his claim for compassionate appointment. Therefore, he is not to be appointed at this point of time. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, it has to be concluded that the first respondent has acted without jurisdiction in issuing the impugned Ext.P1 and the consequential Exts.P3 and Ext.P5 generated on account of what is contained in Ext.P1. In the result, Exts.P1, P3 and P5 are quashed and the writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. For the aforesaid reasons, I.A.No.8000/2008 cannot be allowed. Hence, this is dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/04-07-08