Married son non entitled to get appointment under compassionate scheme ? The Division Bench of Kerlala HC already held that the married sons/daughters are also eligible for employment under dying in harness scheme if they were dependent on the deceased employee at the time of his death.

Married son non entitled to get appointment under compassionate scheme ? The Division Bench of Kerlala HC already held that the married sons/daughters are also eligible for employment under dying in harness scheme if they were dependent on the deceased employee at the time of his death.

The issues such as the calculation of family income is also discussed in this Judgment referring to concerned Government Order in the year 1985.Income of the married sons and daughters and other members 

of the family living separately shall not be reckoned for calculating the family income. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7729 of 2009(I)



                      ...  Petitioner
1. ARUN.K.J., S/O.LATE K.V.JOSE,

                        Vs


                       ...       Respondent
1. STATE OF KERALA,

2. THE REGISTRAR,

3. THE DEAN,


                For Respondent  : No Appearance
For Petitioner  :SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.)


The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN


                 -----------------------------
Dated :12/03/2009

 O R D E R
                          P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

              Dated this the 12th day of March, 2009.
W.P(C) No.7729 of 2009
                ------------------------------


                           J U D G M E N T

The petitioner's father late K.V.Jose was an employee of Kerala Agricultural University. He passed away on 16.5.2008 while in service.

2. The petitioner states that he is unemployed and that he was depending on his father for his livelihood. Seeking employment under the dying-in-harness scheme, the petitioner applied to the Kerala Agricultural University. That application was rejected by the University by Ext.P3 letter dated 13.10.2008 on the ground that the petitioner being a married son of the deceased employee is not entitled to be appointed under the compassionate employment scheme. Reliance was placed on Exhibit P4 letter dated 2.11.2007 sent by the Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department to the Registrar of the University, wherein the Government have taken the said stand. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges Exts.P3 and P4 and prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reconsider his application for employment under the compassionate employment scheme.

3. A Division Bench of this Court has in Rev. Mother, Delphine Mary V. State of Kerala (2002(1) KLT 137) held that married sons/daughters are also eligible to be considered for employment under the dying in-harness scheme if they were dependent on the deceased employee at the time of his death. It was held that though marriage may result in change of status of the son or daughter, he/she may continue to be dependent on their father or mother. A similar view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in St.Ignatius High School V. State of Kerala (2005(3) KLT 1000 ). Further it is brought to my notice that the Secretary to Government, General Education Department had in letter No.61701/J3/2000/G.Edn. dated 6.1.2001 sent to the Director of Public Instruction clarified that married son/married daughter may also be considered for the benefit of compassionate employment scheme if they are otherwise eligible. Letter No.2806/R3/2001/P &ARD dated 19.3.2001 sent by the Principal Secretary to Government, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Rules) Department, Thiruvananthapuram to the Director of Public Instruction wherein it is stated that married son/daughter may also be considered for the benefit of the scheme if they are otherwise eligible, was also brought to my notice.

4. The stand taken by the Government in Exhibit P4 letter is at variance with the decision of this Court and the Government letters referred to above. In Exhibit P4, the Secretary to Government, Agriculture (Farms) Department has taken the stand that as per para 13 of G.O(P)No.12/99/P&ARD dated 24.5.1999 which presently governs appointments under the dying-in harness scheme, the income of married sons and daughters and other members of the family living separately cannot be reckoned for calculating the family income and therefore married sons/daughters are excluded from the purview of the scheme.

5. Para 13 of the GO(P)No.12/99/P&ARD dated 24.5.1999, a copy of which is Exhibit P1, reads as follows:

"Family income to be reckoned is the actual income available to all members of the family from all sources other than family pension. Income from the properties of the members of the family should also be reckoned. Income of the married sons and daughters and other members of the family living separately shall not be reckoned for calculating the family income. In case of disputes on income, the case shall be referred to the concerned District Collector and the income reported by the Collector shall be accepted as the actual income. When salary based income is calculated the pay including all allowances except Travelling Allowance shall be reckoned for the purpose. For this purpose, necessary amendments in the guidelines in G.O(Ms)No.192/85/RD dated 23.3.1985 will be issued, separately."

6. The Government relies on the aforesaid stipulation that the income of married sons/daughters living separately shall not be reckoned for calculating the family income. The said stipulation does not in my opinion justify the stand taken by the Government in Exhibit P4. If a married son or daughter is residing separately and has his or her own income, it means that he or she is not/was not dependent on the deceased. The stipulation in para 13 of Exhibit P1 Government order is only to the effect that the income of married son/daughter living separately shall not be reckoned for the purpose of calculating the family income of the deceased employee. The said stipulation cannot be read as one excluding married sons/daughters from being considered for employment under the compassionate employment scheme. In the light of the decisions of this Court and the Government letters dated 6.1.2001 and 19.3.2001 referred to above, I am of the opinion that the stand taken by the Government in Exhibit P4 and the University in Ext.P3 cannot be sustained.

In the result, I quash Exhibits P3 and P4 and direct the Kerala Agricultural University to re-consider the application submitted by the petitioner for employment assistance under the scheme for compassionate employment (Exhibit P1) and take a decision thereon  after affording the petitioner an opportunity to establish that notwithstanding the fact that he is married, he was dependent on his late father at the time of his death. Final orders in the matter shall be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is allowed as above.

P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vgs.