Kerala High Court
Manu Kumar M.K vs State Of Kerala on 17 February, 2025
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2025:KER:12583
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 28TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 36829 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 MANU KUMAR M.K
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. LATE MOHANAKUMARAN,
KALATHIL HOUSE, THRIKKODITHANAM P.O.,
CHANGANACHERRY,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686105
2 SUJITH. S
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. LATE SUDHAKARAN PILLAI,
V.S. BHAVANAM, 'THOTTINU VADAKKU',
CHAVARA, KOLLAM, PIN-681583
BY ADVS.
SRI.D.KISHORE
SMT.MEERA GOPINATH
SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANNATHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2025:KER:12583
W.P.(C) No.36829/2023
:2:
2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
CORPORATION BUILDINGS,
VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033
3 THE SECRETARY/MANAGER
NSS COLLEGES CENTRAL COMMITTEE,
PERUNNAI, CHANGANACHERRY,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686102
BY ADVS.
SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR,SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.P.GOPAL FOR R3
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 12.02.2025 AND THE COURT ON 17.02.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:12583
W.P.(C) No.36829/2023
:3:
CR
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.36829 of 2023
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2025
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The petitioners are aggrieved by the refusal of the
3rd respondent-Management in not providing employment
under the Compassionate Employment Scheme despite
specific directions issued by the Government.
2. The petitioners state that the father of the 1 st
petitioner, while working as Lower Division Clerk in the NSS
Hindu College, Changanassery died while in service on
25.07.2008. The father of the 2 nd petitioner, while working
2025:KER:12583
as Mechanic in the NSS College, passed away on
09.08.2010. Both the petitioners were qualified to be
appointed in the Group C cadre under the Scheme for
Compassionate Employment.
3. One Simi S. Nath, whose father was a Lecturer in
an Aided College, filed W.P.(C) No.30738/2004 seeking
employment under Compassionate Employment Scheme.
The petitioner therein contended that when the
Compassionate Employment Scheme is made applicable to
all Government Organisations in which employees are paid
out of Government funds, there is no logic in excluding Aided
College Teachers and Staff from the purview of
Compassionate Employment Scheme. A learned Single
Judge allowed the writ petition as per Ext.P2 judgment
holding that Ext.P3 Scheme therein would be applicable to
the Teachers and Staff of Private Aided Colleges also.
4. The Nair Service Society challenged Ext.P2
judgment filing W.A. No.248/2012. The Division Bench of
2025:KER:12583
this Court held that educational agency like the petitioner
therein should have gracefully accepted the Scheme and
should have more compassionate to the dependents of their
deceased employees. However, the Division Bench held
that to the extent it holds that the Scheme would apply to the
employees of the Private Aided Colleges, Ext.P2 judgment
cannot be sustained. The Division Bench, however, held
that once the guidelines for compassionate employment are
framed, the claimants can stake their claim.
5. Subsequently, the 2nd petitioner filed W.P.(C)
No.21632/2014 seeking to implement the directives of the
Government to submit a draft proposal for implementing
Compassionate Employment Scheme in Private Aided
Colleges. This Court allowed the writ petition and directed
the State Government to take a decision in the matter within
six months. Thereafter, the Government issued Ext.P6 order
dated 17.02.2020 framing Scheme for Compassionate
Employment for dependents of employees of Private Aided
2025:KER:12583
Colleges.
6. The petitioners state that they have moved
several applications before the 3rd respondent for providing
to them compassionate employment. On 15.06.2016, the 1 st
respondent-Government sent Ext.P9 communication to the
3rd respondent stating that Government has no objection in
giving employment to the 1st petitioner on compassionate
grounds. Ext.P10 communication was issued to the 1 st
petitioner to that effect.
7. The petitioners thereafter filed W.P.(C)
Nos.13889/2021 and 30704/2021 seeking appointment
under the Compassionate Employment Scheme. The 3 rd
respondent took a stand that compassionate employment
can be given only in the case of employees who died after
07.10.2013. This Court disposed of the writ petition directing
the Government to hear the petitioners and the Management
and to issue appropriate orders taking note of the
observations contained in the judgment.
2025:KER:12583
8. The Government thereafter passed Ext.P12 order
dated 01.10.2022 according sanction to the 3rd respondent to
provide employment assistance to the petitioners, as done in
some other cases. Ext.P12 order dated 01.10.2022 was
followed by Ext.P13 communication dated 09.12.2022 to the
3rd respondent wherein the 3rd respondent was directed that
10% of the total number of LGS posts should be set apart for
appointment under the Compassionate Employment
Scheme.
9. The petitioners state that the reluctance of the 3 rd
respondent to give compassionate employment to the
petitioners is highly illegal and arbitrary. Even though Ext.P6
Scheme restricts grant of employment assistance to the
dependents of employees who died while in service on or
after 07.10.2013, this Court as per Ext.P11 judgment has
granted liberty to the Government to consider the issue as to
whether the cut off date should be made applicable to the
petitioners. The Government considered the issue and
2025:KER:12583
granted sanction to appoint the petitioners ignoring any cut
off date. Still, the 3rd respondent is desisting from appointing
the petitioners.
10. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit in the
writ petition. The 1st respondent submitted that the
Government scrutinised the claim of the petitioners and gave
Ext.R1(b) reply to the Manager in which the Manager was
informed to take action as per Ext.P12 Government Order.
The Manager has not given appointment to the petitioners
even after Ext.R1(b). The 1st respondent stated that even
though Compassionate Employment Scheme was
implemented in private aided institutions only with effect from
07.10.2013, it does not imply that Management is not
permitted to provide employment assistance to those eligible
dependents of staff who died in harness before 07.10.2013.
11. The 3rd respondent vehemently opposed the writ
petition. The 3rd respondent stated that the Scheme for
compassionate appointment framed for private aided
2025:KER:12583
institutions can be applied only prospectively from
07.10.2013, the date of the Government Order. Ext.P12
sanction by the Government is contrary to Ext.R3(a) order.
The Management has not provided compassionate
employment to dependents of any deceased employees who
died prior to 07.10.2013.
12. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in V. Sivamurthy v. State of Andra Pradesh and
others [(2008) 13 SCC 730], the counsel for the 3rd
respondent urged that the benefit of compassionate
appointment should be given strictly according to the
Scheme. The issue is not what is advantageous to the
employee, but what is the actual term of the Scheme.
13. The counsel for the 3rd respondent also relied on
the judgment in Bank of Baroda and others v. Baljit Singh
[AIR 2023 SC 3214] and contended that a direction by this
Court to consider cases for compassionate appointment
dehors the terms of the policy is impermissible as it would
2025:KER:12583
amount to rewriting the terms of the policy. Emphasising on
the judgment of the Apex Court in Tinku v. State of
Haryana [2024 KHC OnLine 6629], it was urged that in a
case where there was no policy, instruction or rule providing
for an appointment on compassionate ground, such
appointment cannot be granted.
14. The counsel for the 3rd respondent further argued
that Ext.P12 order of the government goes against the
Scheme of Compassionate Appointment. If an illegality has
been committed in favour of an individual or a wrong order
has been passed, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the
Court for perpetuating the illegality, urged the counsel for the
3rd respondent, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in
R. Muthukumar and oters v. Chairman and Managing
Director TANGEDCO and others [2022 SCC Online SC
151].
15. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader
2025:KER:12583
representing respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel
appearing for the 3rd respondent.
16. The father of the 1st petitioner and of the 2nd
petitioner passed away on 25.07.2008 and 09.08.2010
respectively while working under the 3rd respondent's Private
Aided College. The petitioners have been seeking
employment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme
since then. There was no Scheme for grant of
compassionate appointment to the dependents of
employees of Aided Colleges at that time. A Division Bench
of this Court, as per Ext.P3 judgment, directed the
Government to consider the case of the employees and their
dependents of the Private Aided Colleges also for extending
the benefit of Compassionate Appointment Scheme.
17. The 2nd petitioner approached this Court filing
W.P.(C) No.21632/2014 seeking to implement the
proceeding whereby the Government directed the
Directorate of Collegiate Education to submit a draft
2025:KER:12583
proposal for implementing Compassionate Employment
Scheme. Thereafter, the Government issued Ext.R3(a)
order dated 07.10.2013 entrusting the Director of Collegiate
Education to frame a Scheme for grant of compassionate
employment to the dependents of employees of Private
Aided Colleges.
18. Pursuant to Ext.R3(a) Government Order dated
07.10.2013, Ext.P6 order dated 17.02.2020 was issued
providing Compassionate Employment Scheme for
dependents of employees of Private Aided Colleges.
However, in Ext.P6 Scheme, it was stated that the major
dependents of employees of Private Aided Colleges who
have expired on or after 07.10.2013, will be given a time limit
of one year for submitting applications. In effect, Ext.P6
Scheme for Compassionate Employment was made
prospective with effect from 07.10.2013, on which date
Ext.R3(a) Government Order was issued.
2025:KER:12583
19. The 3rd respondent would contend that they are
giving Compassionate Employment to dependents of their
employees who passed away after 07.10.2013. But, this
Court cannot compel the 3rd respondent to give
Compassionate Employment to dependents of those
employees who passed away while in service prior to
07.10.2013. It will be against the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments.
20. I find that the bread winners of the family of the
petitioners passed away during 2008-2010. The Scheme for
Compassionate Employment applicable to other
Government Institutions was not extended to Private Aided
Institutions then. W.P.(C) No.30738/2004 was filed before
this Court and a learned Single Judge delivered Ext.P2
judgment directing to consider the claim of the petitioner
therein under the Compassionate Employment Scheme
issued by the Government.
2025:KER:12583
21. In W.A. No.248/2012, this Court delivered Ext.P3
judgment dated 01.10.2014 which directed the Government
to finalise the guidelines relating to employment on
compassionate grounds to the dependents of Aided College
staff.
22. The 2nd petitioner thereafter filed W.P.(C)
No.21632/2014 seeking to direct the Government to
implement proposal for Compassionate Employment
Scheme in Private Aided Colleges. This Court, as per
Ext.P5 judgment, directed the State Government to take
further consequential action. It was thereafter that Ext.P6
Scheme dated 17.02.2020 was floated.
23. As the petitioners were excluded from the purview
of Ext.P6 Scheme, the petitioners approached this Court
filing W.P.(C) Nos.13889/2021 and 30704/2021. In Ext.P11
judgment, this Court observed as follows:
5. Even though I have heard this matter in
great detail, particularly in the context of the
objections raised by the Management to the claim
2025:KER:12583
of the petitioners on the ground that their relatives
had died prior to 07.10.2013, the fact remains that
as long as the view of the Government is as
recorded in the aforementioned Government
Order, it will be difficult for the petitioners to seek
appointment under the Compassionate Scheme.
6. However, it must be borne in mind that
these are the persons who had been fighting all
this while for getting the benefits under the
Scheme. They were earlier denied appointments
solely saying that the Scheme had not been put
into operation, but when it was done - which
ironically, was at the instance of the petitioner in
W.P.(C)No.13889/2021, who had earlier obtained
a judgment from this Court in W.P.
(C)No.21632/2014 - they have been denied the
benefits thereunder solely because the
aforementioned cut-off has been implemented.
24. This Court, in Ext.P11, noted that there are
precedents holding the field to the effect that even when
Schemes are made prospective, the denial of benefits to
persons based on a cut off date perhaps may not be fully
tenable. This Court was of the firm view that the issue
relating to the petitioners must engage the mind of the
Government appropriately. This Court directed the
Government to reconsider the matter, particularly with
respect to the cut off date; clarifying that even if such a date
2025:KER:12583
is found necessary, then to decide whether the benefits
thereunder can be prospective, without denying it to those
people whose relatives died prior to it.
25. It was based on the judgment of this Court that
the 1st respondent-Government has issued Ext.P12 order
according sanction to the 3rd respondent to provide
employment assistance under the Compassionate
Employment Scheme to the petitioners, as done in some
other cases. Ext.P12 would indicate that the cut off date
was waived at least in certain deserving cases. The
Government has taken a positive decision in favour of the
petitioners taking into consideration the true spirit of Ext.P11
judgment and also other instances where similarly situated
dependents were given benefits.
26. It is true that ordinarily this Court will not be
justified in directing the 3rd respondent to grant
Compassionate Employment to the dependent of an
employee, departing from the provisions of the Scheme for
2025:KER:12583
grant of compassionate employment. However, in this case,
this Court has already considered the case of the petitioners
in Ext.P11 judgment and has given direction to the
Government. It is the Government which framed Ext.P6
Scheme, which has accorded sanction to the 3rd respondent
to provide employment assistance under the Compassionate
Employment Scheme to the petitioners, taking into
consideration the facts of the case.
27. The petitioners have been fighting for grant of
compassionate employment, from the very beginning. The
2nd petitioner had approached this Court as early in the year
2014 filing W.P.(C) No.21632/2014. It was the legal fight of
many dependents of employees which has brought about
Ext.P6 Scheme for Compassionate Employment for
dependents of employees of Private Aided Colleges. The
Government or the 3rd respondent cannot defeat the claim
for compassionate employment of those dependents who
have been fighting for their claim, by fixing a cut off date
2025:KER:12583
while framing the Scheme. In the circumstances of the case,
it would be a travesty of justice if compassionate
employment is denied to the petitioners on the basis of a
subsequent cut off date prescribed in the Scheme.
In the facts of the case, the writ petition is
allowed. The 3rd respondent is directed to implement
Ext.P12 order passed by the 1st respondent and to grant to
the petitioners employment assistance under Ext.P6
Scheme. Appropriate orders shall be passed in this regard
within a period of two months.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/12.02.2025
2025:KER:12583
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36829/2023
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE
DATED 18.8.2008 ISSUED BY THE
REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS,
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATS
Exhibit P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE
DATED 26.5.2011 ISSUED BY THE
REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS,
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATS
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
20.12.2011 IN W.P.(C) 30738/2004 OF
THIS HONOURABLE COURT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
01.10.2014 IN W.A. 248/2012 OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
25.10.2017 IN SLP (C) NO.34891/2014
OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
05.11.2019 IN W.P.(C)21362/2014 OF
THIS HONOURABLE COURT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.
10/2020/H.EDN DATED 17.2.2020 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.
520/2020/H.EDN DATED 12.4.2020 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
2025:KER:12583
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
04.3.2021 IN W.P.(C) 2520/2020 OF
THIS HONOURABLE COURT
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
NO.D3/147/2015-HEDN DATED 15.6.2016
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.
E4/47419/2015/HEDN DATED 28.7.2017
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
1ST PETITIONER
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT
DATED 27.07.2022 IN W.P.(C)
13889/2021 AND W.P.(C) 30704/2021 OF
THIS HONOURABLE COURT
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.
1453/2022/HEDN DATED 01.10.2022 OF
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.
D3/57/2022/HEDN DATED 9.12.2022
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.
104/2022/H.EDN DATED 22.2.2022 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.
1374/2022/HEDN DATED 14.9.2022 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.B/204/2023
DATED 16-01-2023
2025:KER:12583
Exhibit R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.D3/57/2022/HEDN DATED 03-05-2023
BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT,HIGHER EDUCATION (D)
DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE
SECRETARY,NSS COLLEGE,CHANGANASSERY
Exhibit R3(a) A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)
NO.636/2013/H.EDN DATED 07.10.2013
