IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 21690 OF 2016
PETITIONER:
VINITHA KALADHARAN
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O. AJITH KUMAR, PUNNASSERIL HOUSE, NEDUMUDI P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANDANCODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
2 THE SECRETARY
THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,NANDANCODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
3 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER
THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,NANDANCODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR, SC, TDB
SHRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 21690 OF 2016 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the daughter of Kaladharan, who unfortunately died while working as a Lecturer in English at the "Devaswom Board Pamba College", Mannar, on 30.12.1974.
2. The petitioner says that her mother was carrying at the time when her father died and that she became major only on 10.03.1993. She says that, thereafter, her mother made an application, in the year 1997, to the Devaswom Board to offer her employment under the Dying-in-Harness Scheme; but that it was rejected through Ext.P1, saying that there was no such scheme available. She says that this stand of the Devaswom Board was wrong because the compassionate appointment scheme was available in its services as early as from the year 1989, but that in spite of this, Ext.P2 was again to issued to her mother on 04.01.1999, reiterating the same excuse.
3. The petitioner says that she, therefore, preferred Ext.P3 application, followed by Exts.P7 to P9 representations; and that her mother had also made similar representations, namely Exts.P4 and P6, but that all of them have fallen on deaf ears and that the Devaswom Board is refusing to grant her any benefit. She, therefore, prays that the competent Authority of the Devaswom Board be directed to offer WP(C) NO. 21690 OF 2016 3 her employment, under the Dying-in-Harness Scheme, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
4. I have heard Sri.Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal - learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.G.Biju - learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board submitted that he has produced the notification of the Travancore Devaswom Board, adopting the Rules for appointment of the relatives/dependents of their employees under the Dying-in-Harness Scheme of the year 1989, along with his memo dated 09.08.2022. He pointed out that, going by these Rules, the dependents of teachers in Aided Colleges under the Devaswom Board are not included therein. He added that it is only in the year 2019, that the Rules for appointment of relatives and dependents of employees in Aided Colleges under the Devaswom Board was adopted, conceding that such Rules are stated to have taken effect from the year 1995. He explained that it is thus that the Devaswom Board answered the request of the petitioner's mother, as made in Ext.P1, through Ext.P2 proceedings informing her that she or her daughter cannot be granted employment under the Dying-in-Harness Scheme of the year 1989. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. WP(C) NO. 21690 OF 2016 4
6. When I consider and evaluate the afore submissions, it is indubitable that the petitioner was not even born when her father unfortunately died. She became major only on 10.03.1993 and I find force in the submissions of Sri.G.Biju, - learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board, that the Dying-in-Harness Scheme of the year 1989 could not have come to her aid, since it does not include the teachers of Aided Colleges.
7. Of course, Sri.Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal - learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the afore said Rules also take in the teachers of Aided Colleges; but in the absence of a specific provision therein to such effect, I am afraid that I cannot find favour with such contentions.
8. That, however, said it is conceded that the Rules for appointment of relatives and dependents of employees in Aided Colleges under the Devaswom Board came into force on 06.06.2019, with retrospective effect from the year 1995. The said Rules specify the criterion that have to be followed before a person can seek employment under its mandate. As said above, the petitioner attained majority only on 10.03.1993 and hence the one year period for making an application under these Rules would have expired only in the year 1994 had it been available then. However, at that time, the Rules had WP(C) NO. 21690 OF 2016 5 not been even thought of and it came into being only on 06.06.2019, admittedly. Obviously, an application under the said Rules could have been made only within a period of one year from the date on which it came into force and it is indubitable that petitioner has done so multiple times, as has been recorded above.
9. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the petitioner's requests, namely Exts.P3, P7 to P9, must engage the attention of the competent Authority of the Devaswom Board, leading to an appropriate proceedings thereon, within the ambit of the 'Rules relating to appointment of relatives and dependents of employees of Aided Colleges under the Travancore Devaswom Board' of the year 2019.
10. At this time, Sri.G.Biju intervened to say that the afore mentioned Rules cannot come to the aid of the petitioner either because, when it mandates that it will come into effect from the year 1995, it means that the employee in the Aided College ought to have died after that date.
11. I am, however, of the view that it will not be prudent for this Court to answer the afore contention at this stage because the Rules merely say that it 'shall come into effect from 1995'. There is no mention therein of the date of death of the employee; and obviously it is a matter of interpretation, which will have to be first done by the WP(C) NO. 21690 OF 2016 6 Travancore Devaswom Board.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition to the limited extent of directing the competent Authority of the Travancore Devaswom Board to take up Ext.P3, P7 to P9 applications of the petitioner and to dispose of the same, after affording her an opportunity of being heard, within the purview of the Rules for appointment of the relatives and dependents of employees of Aided Colleges under the Travancore Devaswom Board of the year 2019; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, I have not considered the claims of the petitioner on its merits in any other manner and that they are all left open to be decided by the Travancore Devaswom Board in terms of law.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE raj/MC WP(C) NO. 21690 OF 2016 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21690/2016 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28-03-
1997.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ROC 9357/98/EST.
DATED 04-01-1999.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15-03-2000.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER P.R.OMANAKUTTY AMMA TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 08-06-2004.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN VIDE LETTER NO. ROC 1184/2009/EST. DATED 29-01-2009.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 14-
02-2013.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 14-02-2013 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04-02-2013.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR DEVASWOM DATED 4.2.2014.