IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6335 of 2010(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHENTHAMARAKSHAN.T, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.LATE VALLIKUTTI,KANDIYATHU PURA, PATHIKKAL, KANNADI.PO, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN SRI.P.A.KUMARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATH,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.6335 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aged 53 years. His mother Smt.Vallikutti died on 15.11.2007 while working as Part-Time Sweeper in kannadi Grama Panchayath (Palakkad). After the death of his mother, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 26.9.2008 and the same was rejected as per order dated 17.12.2008. The petitioner assails the said order of rejection of his application and the consequential denial of employment. 2. The petitioner contends that in the light of a judgment of this Court in Rev.Mother Delphine Mary v. State of Kerala (2002 (1) KLT 137) and St.Ignatious High School V.State of Kerala reported in 2005 (3) KLT 1000, the ground that the petitioner got married and therefore, ineligible for compassionate appointment is no more available to the respondents. Therefore, the rejection of his application for compassionate appointment on the aforesaid ground is unsustainable in the light of the aforesaid judgments. The crucial point to be considered in this matter is W.P.(C) NO.6335/2010 2 whether the concerned applicant was a dependent of the concerned deceased at the time of her death. The prospects for getting compassionate appointment should depend on the outcome of such a consideration. It is the contention of the petitioner that Ext.P3 application submitted by him had not so far been considered by the respondents. Ext.P3 is pending consideration before the respondents. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.6335/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C).NO.6335/2010 JUDGMENT 1st March 2010