Kerala High Court
Gopika Kumari vs The Travancore Devaswom Board on 21 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 1ST MAGHA, 1943
WA NO. 1636 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 6.7.2020 IN WP(C)
35109/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
GOPIKA KUMARI,AGED 32 YEARS,
D/O. GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER K., THACHEZHATHU VEEDU,
CHAVARA, KOTTAIKAKOM, CHAVARA (PO), NOW RESIDING AT
KAILASAM, MADANTHACODE, NELLIMUKKU (P.O.),
KUZHIMATHIKKADU, KOLLAM-691509.
BY ADVS.
C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
M.R.SUDHEENDRAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM HEAD
QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, TRIVANDRUM-695003.
2 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM
BOARD,
NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.
3 THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
O/O. THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM-
691003.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
7.12.2021, THE COURT ON 21.1.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1636 of 2021 2
ALEXANDER THOMAS & VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ.
=========================================
W.A. No.1636 of 2021
[Arising out of the impugned judgment dated 6.7.2020 in W.P.(C).No.35109/2019]
=========================================
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2022
JUDGMENT
Viju Abraham, J.
This appeal is filed by the petitioner in WPC No. 35109 of 2019
challenging the judgment dated 06.07.2020 of the learned Single Judge.
2. Brief facts necessary for the consideration of the present appeal
are as follows: Appellant is the daughter of one Gopalakrishna Panicker
who died in harness on 19.11.2006 while working as Kazhakom in
Panackathodi Devasom coming under Kollam Group of Travancore
Devasom Board. Appellant submitted Exhibit P2 application dated
30.04.2007 for employment under the Compassionate Appointment
Scheme. In spite of the submission of Exhibit P2 application no steps were
taken by the respondents to consider the same and ultimately in 2011 the
appellant was informed that her application is missing and thereupon she
was directed to submit a fresh application. Accordingly, a fresh
application was submitted by the appellant as Exhibit P3 on 28.03.2011.
As the matter was delayed even thereafter appellant submitted Exhibit P4
request dated 18.09.2012 before the 1st respondent requesting to give her
appointment at least in the post of Kazhakom. The application submitted
by the appellant was rejected and by Exhibit P5 communication dated
28.09.2012 the appellant was informed that the application cannot be
considered as per the prevailing Rules as the same was submitted after 4
years from the date of death of the employee. Even thereafter the matter
was followed up by the appellant and again Exhibit P6 request dated
11.10.2017 was submitted by the appellant in which it is stated that as the
application earlier submitted by the appellant is traced out by the
authorities she is again making a request to grant appointment under the
Compassionate Appointment Scheme. It is the contention of the appellant
that later her name was included in list II as serial No. 5 in Exhibit P7 list
of persons to be appointed under the dying in harness scheme. The
grievance of the appellant is that she has not been granted her due
seniority in Exhibit P7 list on the basis of the date of death of her father. It
is contended that dependants of several employees who died after the date
of the death of the appellant's father were given compassionate
appointments overlooking the claim of the appellant. One Raji V.K. who is
serial No. 14 in Exhibit P7 list, whose husband died on 20.01.2014 was
included in list I in the appropriate place based on seniority as is evident
from Exhibit P9 communication dated 18.05.2019 issued by the board
pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in W.P.C No. 2232 of 2019 to
consider her representation to grant her an appropriate placement in the
list of eligible applicants for compassionate appointment. Later appellant
submitted Exhibit P11 representation dated 08.02.2019 and also P12
representation dated 21.05.2019 requesting for appropriate placement in
the list in accordance with seniority.
3. A detailed statement dated 26.01. 2020 was filed on behalf of the
1st respondent Board in which it is contended that Exhibit R1(a) dated
28.03.2011 is the application submitted by the appellant for grant of
compassionate appointment. Along with Exhibit R1(a), the appellant
produced Exhibit R1(b) income certificate issued by the Village Officer,
Chavara. The contention of the appellant that she has submitted Exhibit
P2 application dated 30.04.2007 claiming compassionate appointment is
false and that no such application was submitted by the appellant. Since
the application under the Scheme was not filed within the time and since
the annual family income as per the existing norms should be less than
Rs. 1,50,000/- and going by the income certificate submitted by the
appellant showing that her annual family inc0me is Rs. 1,73,084/-, the
application submitted by the appellant was rejected as per Exhibit R1(c)
dated 06.07.2011. It was also contended that even after the rejection of
her application she continuously filed applications before the Board and
in the said circumstance the Board issued Exhibit R1(d) communication
dated 08.07.2013 intimating that the Board will not entertain any further
applications in this regard. Even thereafter appellant approached the
Board again by filing Exhibit P6 request and as per Exhibit R1 (e)
proceedings of the Board dated 02.12.2017 a decision was taken to include
her name only on humanitarian consideration and thereafter the name of
the appellant was included in Exhibit P7 list.
4. In answer to the same a reply affidavit was filed by the appellant
contending that Exhibit P2 application dated 30.04.2007 was in fact
submitted by her and that the second application was submitted only as
per the directions of the officials of the Board for the reason that her first
application was found to be missing. After the amendment to the Rules by
inserting Section 5(a) there is no income limit prescribed and therefore
the contention in the statement filed by the Board is not correct.
5. The learned Single Judge after considering the contention of both
sides entered a finding that the appellant was not vigilant in pursuing her
claim and that when her application was rejected in 2011 she did not
challenge the same. The learned Single Judge also found that when she
raised her claim in 2017 she was included in Exhibit P7 list as per Exhibit
R1(e) decision of the Board only on humanitarian grounds and therefore
the appellant cannot insist that her case is liable to be considered based
on her eligibility in 2011. The learned Single Judge also considered the
case of the candidate covered by Exhibit P8 judgment and held that the
case of the appellant cannot be equated to her case in as much as she has
submitted an application for compassionate appointment supported by all
documents within 7 months of the death of her husband and when the
Board did not take any steps to give her an appointment, this court as per
Exhibit P8 judgment directed to grant the benefit due to her. Taking all
these aspects into consideration, the learned Single Judge disposed of the
Writ Petition directing to consider the case of the appellant in tune with
the decision in Exhibit R1(e) order, in accordance with the law, as
expeditiously as possible subject to availability of vacancies. It is
aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 06.07.2020 in
W.P.C No. 35109 of 2019 that the present appeal is filed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents.
7. The appellant reiterated the contention that she has submitted
Exhibit P1 application for compassionate appointment as early as
30.04.2007 and only for the reason that the application was found to be
missing that she submitted a second application. The specific case of the
Board in the statement filed on 26.01.2020 is that the appellant has
submitted her application only on 28.03.2011 along with an income
certificate dated 29.03.2011 issued by the Village Officer, Chavara and
contended that the stand of the appellant that Exhibit P2 application
dated 30.04.2007 was submitted by her is false and that no such
application was submitted. Except for the statement that Exhibit P2
application was submitted on 30.04.2007 the appellant could not
establish the same by producing any supporting materials. The
application submitted by the appellant was initially rejected as per Exhibit
R1(c) order dated 06.07.2011. Even though a request was made by the
appellant on 18.09.2012 seeking an appointment under the
Compassionate Appointment Scheme, as per Exhibit P5 order dated
28.09.2012 she was intimated that her application is already rejected as
per Exhibit R1(c) order of the Board dated 06.07.2011. Even though
Exhibit R1(c) communication and Exhibit P5 intimation were issued as
early as 06.07.2011 and 28.09.2012 respectively no steps were taken by
the appellant to challenge the same. After a gap of almost 5 years, she
again raised her claim in 2017 as per Exhibit P6 request dated 11.10.2017,
and the same was considered by the Board, and on humanitarian grounds,
she was included in Exhibit P7 list. Learned Single Judge rightly found
that appellant cannot be extended a similar treatment as was given to the
petitioner in WPC No. 2232 of 2019 covered by Exhibit P8 judgment as
the petitioner therein after the death of her husband on 20.01.2014 has
submitted her application for a compassionate appointment along with all
requisite certificates on 14.08.2014, ie within a period of seven months. In
the case of the appellant, her father died on 19.11.2006 and she submitted
the application only on 28.03.2011. As per Rules, an application ought to
have been submitted within 2 years of the death of the employee
concerned. A reading of Exhibit R1(e) order dated 02.12.2017 issued by
the Board would reveal that even though her application cannot be
considered as per the provisions of the Compassionate Appointment
Rules, she is included in the list only on humanitarian grounds. There is a
considerable delay on the part of the appellant in submitting an
application for a compassionate appointment under the Rules. The
appellant was not vigilant in pursuing her claim and Exhibit R1(c) and
Exhibit P5 orders rejecting her claim were never challenged by her.
In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the well-
considered decision of the learned Single Judge dated 06.07.2020 in
W.P.C. No. 35109 of 2019 and accordingly dismiss the above appeal.
sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE
pm
