IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10380 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.SHEEBA, SHEEJA BHAVAN,KUSAVOOR KUNNUPURAM, KARIMANGODE P.O. PALODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 10380 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 31th March,2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge is against Exhibits P8 and P11 orders by which the application for appointment under the relevant scheme for compassionate employment is rejected on the ground that the applicant is married and therefore she is not eligible. The petitioner belongs to Hindu Cheraman Community and is having the qualifications of B.Sc(Botany), B.Ed and PPTTC. She was a dependent of her late father who died on 19.7.2005 while he was working as Nursing Assistant in Government Hospital, Peroorkada. 2. The petitioner is the elder daughter and the younger daughter is Sheeja. She is married and have got two children. It is pointed out that though she is married her husband has no regular income or employment and they were dependent on her late father and they were staying together also. Even now she is W.P ( C) No. 10380 of 2009 2 living in a small house in five cents of property belonging to the mother and is depending on the family pension of her mother. Under these circumstances, with the consent of her sister and mother, the petitioner applied for appointment under the compassionate employment scheme which was forwarded by the District Medical Officer as per Exhibit-P5 and by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent as per Exhibit-P6. Exhibit-P7 is the report of the verification submitted by the District Collector. 3. It is stated in Exhibit-P8 that going by the relevant Government Order, married son/daughter is excluded from the scheme of compassionate appointment. Again the petitioner submitted Exhibit-P10 representation before the Government seeking to reconsider the same. Petitioner contended that going by the clarification issued by the Government as per letter dated 6.1.2001, its clarification is as far as a married daughter is concerned. Still the same stands rejected by Exhibit-P11. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. W.P ( C) No. 10380 of 2009 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the question whether a married son/daughter will be deprived of appointment was considered by this Court in various decisions namely Rev.Mother Dephine Mary Vs. State of Kerala [2002 (1) KLT 137], St.Ignatius High School Vs. State of Kerala [2005 (3) KLT 1000] and a recent decision of this Court in Ashkarali Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (1) KLT S.N 17). It is further pointed out that going by Exhibit-P9 clarification to the effect that married son/daughter may also be considered for appointment under the scheme if they were eligible or otherwise, the orders Exhibits P8 and P11 cannot be sustained. 6. In Ashkarali Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (1) KLT S.N 17), this Court after examining the scheme in detail this Court held as follows. “Irrespective of marriage, the son or daughter of the deceased employee may have been dependent on the deceased employee, and that, while marriage may change the status of the son/daughter, his or her status as a dependent son or dependent daughter may continue. The mere fact that the son/daughter got W.P ( C) No. 10380 of 2009 4 married by itself will not indicate that he/she is not eligible for appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme.” 7. In the light of the above legal position, the view taken in Exhibits P8 and P11 cannot be supported. Therefore, Exhibits P8 and P11 are quashed. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the application on its merit and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 10380 of 2009 5 W.P ( C) No. 10380 of 2009 6