IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22454 of 2009(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- BABITHA SAM, S/O.SIVANKUTTY, SAROVARAM, PAZHOOR JUNCTION, KANNIMEL CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR AND GENERAL MANAGER, UNITED ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., PALLIMUKKU, KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 22454 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 7th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.C.Rajendran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner's father late G.N.Sivankutty died on 15-3-1999 while he was working as Senior Inspector in United Electrical Industries Ltd., Kollam, a Government of Kerala undertaking. The petitioner who was born on 29-4-1974 was major at that time. She did not move for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme immediately thereafter. More than seven years after her father passed away, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 application dated 5-10-2006 claiming appointment, wherein it was inter alia stated that she is married. The Government by Ext.P3 order condoned the delay in fling Ext.P2 application and directed the General Manager of United Electrical Industries Ltd. to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for employment assistance under the dying- in-harness scheme, observing the procedural formalities. Thereafter, the company forwarded the application for enquiry. The Tahsildar, Kollam conducted a local enquiry and reported that the petitioner is married and W.P.(C) No. 22454/09 2 residing with her husband. The District Collector thereupon forwarded the said report to the third respondent wherein he also mentioned that as the married daughter of the deceased employee, the petitioner is not eligible for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. Ext.P4 is under challenge in this writ petition wherein the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint her under the dying-in-harness scheme. 3. The pleadings and the materials on record disclose that the petitioner's father passed away while in service on 15-3-1999. The petitioner who was born on 29-4-1974 was then aged 25 years. Though she had attained the age of majority, she did not apply for employment assistance. She applied for employment assistance only seven years after her father passed away. The Apex Court has in Umesh Kumar Nagpal V. State of Haryana and others ((1994)4 SCC 138) held that compassionate employment cannot be granted after the lapse of reasonable time, the object being to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis arising out of the death of sole bread winner. It was held that compassionate employment cannot be claimed after the lapse of reasonable time and the crisis is over. The Apex Court also held that the object of granting compassionate appointment is not to give the member of the family a post, much less the post held by the deceased W.P.(C) No. 22454/09 3 employee and that appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme is not appointment by descent. 4. In the instant case, the application for employment assistance was made by the petitioner more than seven years after her father died. In any case, Ext.P1 would show that the petitioner's father would have retired from service on 25-9-1999, within another six months thereafter. Therefore, on the facts of this case, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not able to tide over the sudden financial crisis arising as a result of the death of her father, six months prior to the date on which he would have ordinarily retired from service. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be granted appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. Therefore, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the merits of the stand taken by the District Collector in Ext.P4 that married sons or daughters are not eligible for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. mn.