IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16520 of 2008(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RATHEESH KUMAR.R., RATHEESH BHAVAN, VISHNU NAGAR, THRIKKANNAPURAM INDUSTRIAL ESTATE PO., TRIVANDRUM-695 019. BY ADV. MR.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, KESHAVADASAPURAM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM 3. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DISTRICT OFFICE, AIRPORT ROAD, VALIYATHURA, TRIVANDRUM 4. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (S), FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, CHENNAI-6. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, SC, FCI, MR.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J., SC, FCI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 16520/2008-N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE MEDICAL SUMMARY RECORD ISSUED BY REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE IN FVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE CONSENT SIGNIFIED JOINTLY BY GIREESH AND USHADEVI (THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER) IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE CONSENT SIGNIFIED BY THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05/12/2007 IN O.P. NO. 23182/2002 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 822/1999 DATED 31/07/2000 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/04/2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06/05/2002 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING SURGERY MARK ON THE FACE OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 26/09/2008 ISSUED BY DR.B.V.R.KUMAR, MD (GEN.MED.) JUBILEE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 05/02/2001 SUBMITTED BY SMT.USHA DEVI BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE CHEMOTHERAPY REPORT PERTAINS TO THE PETITIONER, DATED 15/10/2001, ISSUED FROM REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 16520 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri. Millu Dandapani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Vivek Varghese, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Food Corporation of India. 2. The petitioner’s father late G. Ravi was an employee of the Food Corporation of India. He had initially married Smt. Girijakumari and in that marriage, a son, Sri. R.G.Girish, was born to him. Smt.Girijakumari, wife of late G.Ravi passed away on 30.05.1980. Thereafter, he married Smt.I.Usha Devi, the petitioner’s mother. 3. Sri G Ravi, father of the petitioner, passed away on 31.10.1999 while in service. On his death, a dispute arose as to who among his legal heirs is entitled to seek appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme and claim the terminal benefits. The dispute was resolved by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram by Ext.P7 judgment delivered on 31.07.2000. The Family Court held that Sri. R.G.Girish, Smt. I. Usha Devi, Smt. Saradamma (mother of W.P.(C) No. 16520/08 N 2 late G. Ravi) and the petitioner herein are the legal heirs of late G. Ravi. As regards appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme, it was held that one among the legal heirs of late G.Ravi will be entitled to such appointment and that the person to whom such employment is to be given has to be decided by the concerned department as per rules and with the consent of the other legal heirs. 4. Initially the petitioner’s mother and Sri. R.G.Girish had applied for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. Since there was no consensus among the legal heirs of late G.Ravi as to who should be given appointment under the dying in harness scheme, the Corporation did not process the said application and it was kept pending. The petitioner’s mother and Sri. R.G.Girish were informed accordingly in Ext.P9 letter dated 06-05-2002. The petitioner's mother thereupon filed W.P.(C) No. 23182 of 2002 in this Court challenging Ext.P9. The petitioner was at that point of time suffering from cancer of the salivary gland and he had undergone surgery and extensive treatment. It appears that in view of this development, Sri. R.G.Girish agreed to give up his claim and thereupon all the legal heirs of late G.Ravi agreed that petitioner can W.P.(C) No. 16520/08 N 3 apply for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. He accordingly submitted an application for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, the petitioner’s mother agreed to withdrew O.P. No. 23182 of 2002 filed by her challenging Ext.P9 and by Ext.P5 judgment W.P.(C) No. 23182 of 2002 was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, by Ext.P8 letter dated 22-4-2008 the Food Corporation of India informed the petitioner’s mother that her application for employment assistance and the petitioner's application to substitute him as the applicant stand rejected. Ext.P8 is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. The Food Corporation of India has in Ext.P8 as well as in Ext.P9 stated that vacancies against which the petitioner can be appointed do not exist. It is also stated in Ext.P8 that the application could not be kept pending for more than three years. The Food Corporation of India has its counter affidavit stated that vacancies against which petitioner’s mother could have been appointed did not arise within a period of three years. 6. From the pleadings, it is evident that the applications submitted by the petitioner’s mother and Sri.R.G. Girish for W.P.(C) No. 16520/08 N 4 compassionate appointment were not entertained for the reason that there was a dispute as to who among them was entitled to be appointed and also for the reason that vacancies did not arise. The Food Corporation of India has stated that as per the directions issued by the Government of India, applications for employment assistance cannot be kept pending for more than three years from the date of receipt of the application. The Food Corporation of India has also stated that as the legal heirs of late G. Ravi were paid a sum of Rs.3,96,549 towards the terminal benefits, it cannot be said that the family of the deceased employee was put to any financial crisis on account of the sudden demise of the employee. 7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. The petitioner’s father passed away on 31-10-1999. The first application submitted by the petitioner’s mother was rejected by Ext.P9 letter dated 06-05-2002. Though she had filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the said decision, that writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by Ext.P5 judgment on 05-12-2007. By then nearly 8 years had passed after the petitioner’s father breathed his last. It is also not in dispute that the legal heirs of late G.Ravi had been paid the sum W.P.(C) No. 16520/08 N 5 of Rs.3,96,549/- as terminal benefits. The Apex court has in Umesh Kumar Nagpal V. State of Haryana and others ((1994)4 SCC 138) held that compassionate appointment should not be granted after a reasonable period has lapsed. It was also held that the object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and that the object is not to give a member of such family a post, much less the post held by the deceased employee. The Apex Court has also held that the financial condition of the family of the deceased has to be examined and it is only if the Government or the authority is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. It was also held that compassionate appointment scheme does not contemplate appointment by descent. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in Umeshkumar Nagpal V. State of Haryana and others (Supra) it cannot be said that the stand taken by the respondents in Exts.P8 and P9 is in any way arbitrary or illegal. Though the Family Court had in Ext.P7 judgment held that one among the legal heirs of W.P.(C) No. 16520/08 N 6 late G.Ravi can claim compassionate appointment with the consent of others, such consent was not forthcoming in the case of the petitioner’s mother and also in the case of the petitioner till 2006. By then nearly 7 years had passed after the demise of the petitioner’s father. They had also in the meanwhile been paid terminal benefits to the tune of Rs.3,96,549/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that family of the deceased employee was not in a position to meet the crisis. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner's mother and later by the petitioner cannot in any way be said to be illegal. For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. mn.