IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 1201 of 2005(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THULASI R.NAIR, W/O.LATE V.G.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ARACKAL HOUSE, PUTHUSSERYMALA P.O., RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST, PIN-689 672. 2. REETHU CHANDRAN, S/O.LATE V.G.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ARACKAL HOUSE, PUTHUSSERYMALA P.O., RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST., PIN-689 672. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO SMT.N.SHOBHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., 87, M.G.ROAD, MUMBAI-400 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.1201/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 11/02/2003 OF 1ST PETITIONER. P2 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 16/06/2003 OF THE PETITIONER. P3 : COPY OF LETTER OF R2. P4 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 24/06/2003 OF R1. P5 : COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 03/10/2002 OF R1. P6 : COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 07/11/2003 OF R1. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.1201 of 2005 (R) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 1st day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the 2nd petitioner, Shri.V.G.Ramachandran Nair, was a Senior Assistant in the 1st respondent. He expired on 03/02/2003. The 1st petitioner made Exts.P1 & P2 applications dated 11/02/2003 and 16/06/2003 respectively for employment on compassionate ground. By Ext.P3, she was informed that by Ext.P5 circular dated 03/10/2003, it has been decided by the Company that with effect form 01/10/2002, no appointment on compassionate ground shall be made to the legal heir, and that instead it has been decided to pay lump sum monetary compensation. In Ext.P3, enclosing Exts.P5 & P6, the 1st petitioner was also informed about the monetary compensation that she was entitled for. It was thereupon that this writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3, P5 & P6, and to declare that the 2nd petitioner, being the son of the deceased, is entitled to get a suitable appointment on compassionate ground. As already seen, the WP(C) No.1201/2005 -2- reason shown in Exts.P3 & P5 and in the counter affidavit is that the system of appointment on compassionate ground has been dispensed with, with effect from 01/10/2002. The claim for appointment on compassionate ground can be made by an eligible person, only if a scheme providing for such appointment is prevailing in the establishment. In this case, admittedly, the scheme has been dispensed with, with effect from 01/10/2002. This means subsequent to 01/10/2002 there has not been any scheme for compassionate appointment in the establishment. Admittedly, the death in question occurred only on 03/02/2003, which is subsequent to 01/10/2002. If so, since there was no scheme prevailing in the Company at the time of death of the employee, the petitioners could not have claimed appointment on compassionate ground. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg