Kerala High Court
P.P.Shainy vs Oriental Insurance Company ... on 7 July, 2021
WP(C) No.24419/2020 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Wednesday, the 7th day of July 2021 / 16th Ashadha, 1943
WP(C) NO. 24419 OF 2020(B)
PETITIONER:
P.P.SHAINY AGED 36 YEARS D/O.P.ACHUTHAN NAIR, ARCHANA, PUTHENPURAYIL
HOUSE, KAYANNA BAZAR (PO), PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE - 673 525.
RESPONDENTS:
1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED SEEMA BUILDINGS II FLOOR,
P.B.NO.18, G.H.ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673001, REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
2. GENERAL MANAGER PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED ORIENTAL HOUSE, P.B.NO.7037, A-25/27 ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW
DELHI - 110 002.
3. CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL
OFFICE, METRO PALACE, NORTH RAILWAY STATION, KOCHI -682018.
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to stay the operation of the Ext.P12 order pending disposal of
this writ petition.
This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of
Smt.SUMATHY DANDAPANI along with M/S.MILLU DANDAPANI & T.FATHIMA K.,
Advocates for the petitioners, SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) along with
M/s.ALEXY AUGUSTINE & GEORGE A.CHERIAN, Advocates for R1 to R3, the court
passed the following:
WP(C) No.24419/2020 2/5
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24419/2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02/05/2005 ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
WP(C) No.24419/2020 3/5
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.24419/2020
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2021
ORDER
I have heard this matter rather expansively today.
2. Apart from the legal issues impelled by the rival sides,
there is another issue deserving of being tempered by consideration of
empathy, namely, that petitioner lost her father in a very young age and
has been litigating for the last 21 years for an employment, hoping that
this will give her a foothold in life.
3. The learned Senior Counsel - Smt.Sumathy Dandapani,
instructed by Sri.Millu Dandapani, informs me that her client's
condition is still very pathetic and that she fervently hopes she will
obtain employment, which is legitimate to her.
4. Sri.George.A.Cherian - learned Senior Counsel, instructed
by Smt.K.S.Santhi - learned Standing Counsel for the 1 st respondent -
Oriental Insurance Company, submitted that the apparent insouciance
of the petitioner, in having waited from 2005 - when she was issued
with Ext.P2, till 2016 - when she approached this Court as well as the
Trial Court for a declaration of legal heirship, would prove fatal to her
WP(C) No.24419/2020 4/5
W.P.(C) No.24419/2020
because, going by the various judgments of this Court and that of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court covering the field of compassionate
appointment, she would have been entitled to seek it only to tide over
the shock and the immediate financial crisis faced by the family on
account of the death of the sole breadwinner. He submitted that the
petitioner's father admittedly died in the year 2000 and that his client,
therefore, finds it inappropriate, even on humanitarian grounds, to
offer any employment after 21 years.
5. Even when I hear Sri.George.A.Cherian - learned Senior
Counsel as afore, I am of the view that before taking a final decision
on the merits of the dialectical contentions presented in the case, it
will be apposite that the 1st respondent decides whether any benefit
can be given to the petitioner, albeit in the lowest post available,
taking note of her rather pathetic situation. I am aware that, prima
facie, there is some merit in the contentions of Sri.George.A Cherian -
learned Senior Counsel as afore, but in my view considerations on the
ground of empathy and humanity would still not be inaccessible the 1 st
respondent particularly, when this Court is willing to make it clear that
any such benefit is given to the petitioner, cannot be and will not be
WP(C) No.24419/2020 5/5
W.P.(C) No.24419/2020
construed as a precedent in future.
I, therefore, adjourn this matter to be called on 12.08.2021, so as
to enable the 1st respondent to revert to this Court appropriately.
H/O Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
SAS/07/07/2021
07-07-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
