IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 35926 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJILA.T.R SREERAJ, PUTHUPPANAM PO, PANNIKOLLY, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 35926 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 5th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the daughter of late Smt. C.K. Lakshmi, who was a Nursing Assistant in the Health and Family Welfare Department of the Government of Kerala. The mother died on 29.5.2005. The brother of the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate employment under the compassionate employment scheme of the Government in favour of dependents of Government servants who died in harness. That application is pending. Later, the brother wanted to withdraw the application in favour of the petitioner. By Ext. P5 order, the Government directed the brother of the petitioner to explain the circumstances leading to withdraw the application in favour of the petitioner. The reason stated by the petitioner is that the brother is likely to be advised for appointment as Pump Operator in the Kerala Water Authority and that is why he wanted to withdraw the application in favour of the petitioner. But the Government has not permitted withdrawal of the application of the brother in favour of the petitioner. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding and compelling the respondents to permit the withdrawal of the application submitted by the brother of the petitioner under the dying in harness scheme so so to consider the application for employment under compassionate employment scheme submitted by the petitioner; ii) declare that the respondent is statutorily duty bound to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for compassionate employment and that the non-consideration of the application is highly unjust and illegal; iii) issue a direction directing the respondent to permit the brother of the petitioner to withdraw the application since he has submitted the request for withdrawal of application well within the time limit prescribed, ie. in terms of clause 26 of G.O(P)No. 12/99/P&ARD dated 24.5.1999 and to consider the application submitted by the petitioner and give her suitable employment considering the qualification W.P(C) No.(C) 35926/10 prescribed by her.” 2. The learned Government pleader, on instructions, submits that the withdrawal of application in favour of another legal heir should also be submitted within the period of limitation prescribed in the scheme, which is two years from the date of death which has not been done in this case. He also points out that the Government Order on the subject has not been correctly reproduced in the law books and as per the original Government Order, it is specifically stipulated that the right to withdraw is restricted to within the time limit prescribed and before the job is accepted. He has also produced a gazette copy of the Government Order. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the time limit prescribed in clause 26 of the claim cannot be the time limit prescribed in clause 19. In support of his contention, he points out that in clause 25, paragraph 19 is specifically referred to whereas in clause 26, paragraph 19 is not specifically mentioned. But what is stated is “within the time limit before the job is accepted.” Therefore, according to the petitioner, withdrawal of the application can be at any time before the job is accepted. It is also submitted that the clause should be interpreted beneficially in favour of the applicant. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Clauses 19, 25 and 26 of the scheme read as follows: “19. The time limit for preferring applications under the scheme will be 2 years from the date of death of Government servants. In the case of minor, the period will be within 3 years after attaining majority. xx xx xx W.P(C) No.(C) 35926/10 25. Appointment once offered and the post once applied for shall be allowed to be changed if the request for change is made within the time limit prescribed in para 19 above. 26. Applicant will have the right to withdraw his/her application at any time within the time limit before the job is accepted, so as to enable another dependent of the family to make his/her application for employment assistance.” (underlining supplied) I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner in that regard. I am of opinion that the words “within the time limit before the job is accepted” occurring in clause 26 should be read to mean “within the time limit prescribed in clause 19 before the job is accepted.” That restriction is stipulated so as to ensure that there is no application beyond the time limit prescribed for applying for compassionate employment. The object of compassionate employment scheme is not merely to give a job to one of the legal heirs of the deceased Government service. As settled by decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court , the object is to enable the family of the deceased Government servant to tide over the immediate financial crisis faced by the family on account of the death of the Government servant. If interpreted in the light of that object, I am of opinion that the withdrawal of application in favour of another legal heir should also be within the time limit prescribed under clause 19. The application for withdrawal by the brother of the petitioner is beyond the time limit prescribed. As such, I do not think that the petitioner can now aspire for the compassionate employment by submitting another application after the two year period is over. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the W.P(C) No.(C) 35926/10 petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, I make it clear that it would be open to the brother of the petitioner, the original applicant to withdraw the application for withdrawal of his application, to pursue the application filed by him for compassionate employment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.