IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29674 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- SANJITH KUMAR N.M AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.LATE SASIDHARAN RESIDING AT PARAMBATH VEEDU,PANTHALAYANI, KOYILANDI PO, KOZHIKODE 673 305. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY . LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR PANCHAYATHS,TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS KOZHIKODE. 4. THE MOODADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MOODADI,KOZHIKODE. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29674 OF 2009 (D) ===================== Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that his father Sasidharan Parambath, a Lower Division Clerk at the Moodadi Grama Panchayat died in harness on 2/11/2007. Thereupon, petitioner made an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. The application was considered and by Ext.P7 order dated 17/11/2008, it was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is a married son of the deceased Government employee and therefore is not eligible for the benefit of compassionate appointment. On its receipt, petitioner sought review of Ext.P7 by filing Ext.P9. However, there has not been any response and therefore this writ petition is filed. 2. As noticed above, the only reason stated in Ext.P7 for rejecting the application made by the petitioner is that he is a married son. Ext.P7 also does not disclose examination of the dependency factor. In so far as the question whether a married son is ineligible for compassionate appointment, the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner and one of the judgment deciding this issue is Ext.P8, where it has been held that marriage WPC 29674/09 :2 : by itself does not disentitle a claimant for appointment under dying in harness scheme. 3. Therefore, Ext.P7 cannot be sustained and is therefore set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner with due advertance to the dependency factor and decide the matter afresh. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp