IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27972 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANJU R.S., W/O.RAMESH KUMAR K.R., ANJANA, T.C.19/1647, THAMALAM, POOJAPPURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. `````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 27972 of 2009 N `````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's father one Sanalkumar, while working as Driver in the Kerala Water Authority, died in harness on 29-11- 2006. The petitioner filed Ext.P1 application for compassionate appointment. She claims that the annual family income is only Rs.24,000/- and she is otherwise eligible for appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme. By Ext.P3, the Government rejected the petitioner's application in the following terms:- “ Inviting attention to the reference cited I am to inform that the application of Smt.R.S.Anju, D/o.Late D.Sanal Kumar, Driver for employment assistance under Compassionate Employment Scheme cannot be considered since married son/daughter will not come under the definition of 'dependent'. '' Consequently, orders have been passed by the Water Authority as per Ext.P4. Exts.P3 and P4 are challenged in this writ petition. WPC.27972/09 : 2 : 2. Ext.P5 will show that late Sanalkumar has left behind him only his wife and daughter as legal representatives. His widow is aged 49. The petitioner is married. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned senior Government Pleader and learned standing counsel for the Kerala Water Authority. The stand taken by the Government in Ext.P3 that a married daughter is not entitled to be considered for appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme is incorrect and it has been so held by this Court as evidenced by the dictum in Rev.Mother, Delphine Mary Vs. State of Kerala [2002 (1) KLT 137] and St.Ignatius High School Vs. State of Kerala and others [2005 (3) KLT 1000]. The principle has been reiterated in Ashkarali Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (1) KLT S.N.17]. 4. In the circumstances, Exts.P3 and P4 are set aside and the first respondent is directed to reconsider the petitioner's case. The petitioner's eligibility shall be determined, after taking note of Ext.P5 also. The petitioner's claim shall not be rejected on the ground that she is a married daughter. Fresh orders shall be passed by the Government, within three months from the date of WPC.27972/09 : 3 : receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) aks