Vinitha Kaladharan vs The Travancore Devaswom Board
2022 Latest Caselaw 9188 Ker

               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

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.

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

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

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

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.