Akshay .S.A vs Guruvayur Devaswom Managing ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10998 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
 THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA,
                                   1944
                        WP(C) NO. 28006 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

              AKSHAY .S.A
              AGED 25 YEARS
              S/O. ASHOKAN S.R
              SHANGARANTHADATHIL HOUSE
              CHITTILAPPILLY P.O,
              THRISSUR, PIN - 680551
              BY ADVS.
              K.B.GANGESH
              SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH
              ATHIRA A.MENON


RESPONDENTS:

    1          GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE
               REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR
               OFFICE OF GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM
               GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680101
    2          COMMISSIONER OF GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM
               OFFICE OF GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM
               GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR -, PIN - 680101


              SRI.T.K.VIPIN DAS-SC,PARVATHY.K-GP


        THIS    WRIT    PETITION     (CIVIL)   HAVING    BEEN    FINALLY
HEARD    ON      ON    03.11.2022,    THE   COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P (C) No. 28006 of 2022
                                ..2..




                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the brother of Smt.Anusha S.A, who

unfortunately died while studying in Sree Krishna College,

Guruvayur - which is owned and managed by the 1 st

respondent - Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee

('Committee', for short) - when a tree fell on her in the

campus.

2. The petitioner says that since the family was

going through extreme crisis, they approached the 1 st

respondent - Committee seeking compassion, and that

Ext.P4 order was issued on 02.02.2022, offering

employment to him. He says that, however, when this

proposal was sent by the Devaswom to the 2 nd respondent

- Commissioner, for consideration, he has issued Ext.P5

rejecting Ext.P4, but directing the Committee to consider

grant of monetary compensation to the family.

3. The petitioner asserts that Ext.P5 is unfair and

illegal because, in the case of another person who was W.P (C) No. 28006 of 2022 ..3..

only injured in the same accident, his sister was offered

employment and that she is presently working as L.D.Clerk

in the Tapal Section of the Devaswom offfice.

4. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P5 be

set aside and the 2nd respondent - Commissioner be

directed to consider Ext.P4 in its proper perspective,

taking note of the afore stated fact that the dependent of

a person who was merely injured in the accident, has been

offered employment.

5. The afore submissions of Sri.K.P.Gangesh -

learned counsel for the petitioner, were answered by

Sri.Vipin Das - learned Standing Counsel for the Guruvayur

Devaswom Board saying that his client had already taken

a decision, as is evident from Ext.P4, but that it did not get

the approval of the Commissioner. He submitted that his

client could have done nothing more than this.

6. Smt.Parvathy Kottol - learned Government

Pleader, appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that, W.P (C) No. 28006 of 2022 ..4..

Ext.P5 can never be found to be in error, because the

Commissioner is bound to act as per law and under the

ambit of the applicable Rules and Regulations. She

explained that, since, the petitioner does not come within

the definition of "dependent", as far as late Anusha is

concerned, the offer made to him by the Devaswom

cannot obtain approval in law; and therefore, that as

rightly stated in Ext.P5, the family can only be monetarily

compensated. She thus prayed that this writ petition be

dismissed.

7. Though the afore submissions of Smt.Parvathy

Kottol certainly are valid and deserving favour when

viewed on its own, one thing that causes some concern in

the mind of this Court is that a person who was injured in

the very same accident has been allowed the favour of his

sister being employed in the Guruvayur Devaswom; and

this aspect has not been considered by any of the

Authorities, including the 2nd respondent - Commissioner. W.P (C) No. 28006 of 2022 ..5..

8. Therefore, if the petitioner is right in asserting

that an injured person in the same accident had been

given the benefit as afore, then he also stand on the same

footing - if not better, since his sister, unfortunately,

succumbed in the said accident.

9. In the afore circumstances, I am without doubt

that, whatever be the legal contentions that the

respondents may have, the petitioner's case must

certainly be reconsidered, adverting to the afore peculiar

factual scenario; namely, that another person who was

injured in the same accident, has been given the benefit

as asserted by him.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside

Ext.P5; with a consequential direction to the 2 nd

respondent - Commissioner, to reconsider the claim of the

petitioner, adverting to my observations above and after

affording him an opportunity of being heard; thus

culminating in an approriate order and necessary action W.P (C) No. 28006 of 2022 ..6..

thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than

two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgement.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

ACR W.P (C) No. 28006 of 2022 ..7..

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28006/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 12.02.2016 ABOUT THE ACCIDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.08.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S FATHER Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 16.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S FATHER Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 02.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S FATHER INTIMATING THAT THE MATTER HAS BEEN REFERRED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR APPROVAL Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 13.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER