Midhun Kumar S.S vs The Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 140 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
  TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 21ST POUSHA, 1943
                     WP(C) NO. 26892 OF 2019
PETITIONER/S:

            MIDHUN KUMAR S.S.
            AGED 33 YEARS
            S/O. LATE SREEDHARAN NAIR. R, SARALAYAM
            EDAVILAKATHU MELE PUTHEN VEEDU, PERUMULOOR,
            PLAVILA, OORUTTAMBALAM P.O, KARAKKADA TALUK,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 507
            BY ADV R.B.RAJESH


RESPONDENT/S:

    1       THE UNION OF INDIA
            REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME
            AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, CABINET SECRETARIAT, RAISINA
            HILLS, NEW DELHI-110 001
    2       THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,
            CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, HEAD QUARTERS,
            13 C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-PIN-
            10003.
    3       THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL,
            CISF HEAD QUARTERS, 13 C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,
            NEW DELHI, PIN-10003.
    4       THE COMMANDANT,
            CISF UNIT, V.S.S.C. THUMPA, THUMPA. P.O,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-605 022
            BY ADVS.
            SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
            SRI.N.S.DAYA SINDHU SHREE HARI


            ASGI ADV.S.MANU


     THIS    WRIT   PETITION     (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION    ON   11.01.2022,     THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                      2
  W.P.(C).No.26892 of 2019




                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner's father Sreedharan Nair died on

13.06.1992, while serving as 'Constable' in the Central

Industrial Security Force. Sreedharan Nair is survived by his

wife and two sons. As both children were minors when

Sreedharan Nair died, his widow, the petitioner's mother,

submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment

on 11.08.1992. The application was rejected under Ext.P2

dated 18.02.1993, without assigning any reason. The hapless

widow waited patiently till the petitioner, the elder son,

attained majority. Immediately thereupon, Ext.P3 application

was filed, seeking compassionate appointment for the

petitioner. The said request was turned down by Ext.P5

stating that, even though as per the extant rules, the minor

dependent member can apply for compassionate appointment

on attaining the age of 18 years, that should be within five

years of the death of the employee. Undeterred, the

petitioner filed yet another application which was also

rejected, this time stating that the death had occurred more

W.P.(C).No.26892 of 2019

than 12 years back and the request for compassionate

appointment cannot be considered at a belated stage. Later

the petitioner got information that the time limit for

considering application for compassionate appointment was

withdrawn under Ext.P11. Thereupon, in a final attempt,

Ext.P9 application was filed. The respondents having failed to

consider the application, this writ petition is filed to direct

appointment of the petitioner under the dying-in-harness

scheme or in the alternative, to direct consideration of Ext.P9,

based on the revised scheme.

2. Heard Adv. R.B.Rajesh learned counsel for the

petitioner and Adv. N.S Daya Sindhu Sreehari learned C.G.C

appearing for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously

contended that the very purpose of compassionate

appointment scheme is being defeated by the repeated

rejection of the application filed by the widow of the deceased

initially, seek and later, by the son, on attaining majority. It

is contented that absolutely no reason is stated in Ext.P2 and

the first application filed by the petitioner was rejected for the

W.P.(C).No.26892 of 2019

absurd reason that the minor should have attained majority

within five years of the employee's death. In any event,

Ext.P9 application filed after the time stipulation was lifted

ought to have been considered favourably. It is submitted

that the family of the deceased is continuing in penury even

now.

4. Learned CGC submitted that, pending the writ

petition, Ext.P9 was considered by the authority and rejected

under Ext.R4 (d). it is contended that the challenge against

Exts.P2 and P5 is highly belated. Ext.P9 is filed only on

11.09.2018, whereas the petitioner attained the majority on

24.5.2004. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the

Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others v.

Ashish Awasthi [2021 SCC OnLine SC 1084], to contend that

application for compassionate appointment has to be

considered in accordance with the scheme prevailing at the

time of death of the employee. Reference is made to the

decision in Steel Authority of India Ltd v. Gouri Devi [2021

SCC OnLine SC 1080], to argue that, delay in pursuing the

claim for compassionate appointment will result in the very

W.P.(C).No.26892 of 2019

objective of the scheme, which is to provide immediate

amelioration to the family, getting extinguished.

I find substantial force in the contention that the

respondent had committed gross illegality by rejecting the

application made by the widow of the deceased, immediately

after the death. The reasons for rejection of the application is

not discernible from Ext.P2. Even though the learned CGC

contended that Ext.P2 is only a communication intimating the

rejection and a separate order stating the reasons would have

been passed by the Head Quarters, no such order is seen

communicated to the applicant. The purpose of the

compassionate appointment scheme is to lend financial help

to the family of the deceased to tide over the crisis faced due

to the sudden death of an earning member. Being so, the

approach by the authorities should also be moulded in

compassion and empathy, which unfortunately is lacking. But

that there is no reason to interfere with Ext.P2, issued way

back on 18.02.1993 and Ext.P5, on 13.12.2004, particularly

when those orders are not challenged. As far as Ext.R4(d)

order rejecting Ext.P9 application is concerned, I find the

W.P.(C).No.26892 of 2019

reason therein to be well founded, since the application was

filed, 26 years after the death of petitioner's father.

In the result the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

rpk

W.P.(C).No.26892 of 2019

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26892/2019

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF LATE SREEDHARAN NAIR.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 18.02.1993, ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 30.06.2004, SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.11.2004, BY THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 13.12.20O4, ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 30.05.2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 06.06.2005 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 11.09.2018.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA OF APPLICATION FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15.10.2018.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH MEMBER DATED 19.10.2018.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.

F. NO. 14014/3/2011-ESTT. (D) DATED 26.07.2012.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM F.NO. 14014/02/2012-ESTT (D) DATED

W.P.(C).No.26892 of 2019

16.01.2013.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R4(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE LETTER NO.

(6304) DATED 10.11.2018.

EXHIBIT R4(B) A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.(8005) DATED 19.07.2019.

EXHIBIT R4(C) A TRUE COPY DOPT ORDER NO.14014/19/2002/ESTT(D) DATED 5TH MAY,2003.

EXHIBIT R4(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE LETTER NO.

(5092) DATED 18.10.2019.