The Chief Engineer (Human Resource ... vs Athira Krishnan
2025 Latest Caselaw 900 Ker

Kerala High Court

The Chief Engineer (Human Resource ... vs Athira Krishnan on 11 July, 2025

WA No.894/2022

                                   1

                                                      2025:KER:50630
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI

                                   &

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

        FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1947

                          WA NO. 894 OF 2022

        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 22.11.2021 IN WP(C) NO.19106

OF 2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANT:

             THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT) KERALA
             STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED
             VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

             BY ADV SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
RESPONDENTS:
     1     ATHIRA KRISHNAN,
           D/O. SMT. ANANDAVALLY, AJITH BHAVANAM, THOTTINUVADAKKU,
           CHAVARA PO, KOLLAM-691 583.

    2        TAHSILDAR,
             TALUK OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690 573.


THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.07.2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WA No.894/2022

                                          2

                                                                      2025:KER:50630


                                     JUDGMENT

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the

Kerala High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated 22.11.2021

passed in WP(C) No.19106/2021 whereby the Writ Petition filed by the 1 st

respondent was disposed of by the learned Single Judge. The appellant

herein is respondent No.2 in the Writ Petition whereas the 1 st respondent

was the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is the 1st respondent in the

Writ Petition.

2. The Writ Petition was filed by the 1 st respondent herein

praying for the following reliefs:

"(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the 1 st respondent to issue legal heirship certificate to the petitioner within time limit fixed by the Hon'ble Court.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction declaring to quash Ext.P2 communication of the 1st respondent and further direct the 1st respondent to consider/accept the petitioner's application afresh.

(c) Issue a writ, order or direction declaring to set aside Ext.P3 communication of the 2nd respondent and further direct the 2 nd respondent to consider/accept the petitioner's application for employment on compassionate grounds with Succession Certificate without mandating for legal heirship certificate.

(d) Pass such other and further directions in favour of the petitioners as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition

is that the 1st respondent is the daughter of one Radhakrishnan, who

while working as overseer in electrical section, Thevalakkara of Kerala

State Electricity Board Ltd., expired on 04.03.2010. As per the

2025:KER:50630 Compassionate Employment Scheme applicable to the KSEB employees,

one of the dependents of the deceased employee is eligible to be

considered for compassionate appointment. The 1st respondent

submitted an application for compassionate appointment along with

Ext.P1 Succession Certificate on 23.01.2020.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that as per paragraph 20 of the scheme, the application for

appointment of dependents of the Government Servants who die-in-

harness will be entertained only in the prescribed form given in

appendix 'A' with a Court Fee stamp of Rs.2/- affixed thereon. The

application shall be submitted in the office where the Government

Servant had last worked. The legal heirship certificate issued by the

Tahasildar concerned, Income Certificate and Death Certificate

should be invariably enclosed with the application. Therefore, the

production of the legal heirship certificate issued by the Tahasildar

concerned is mandatory requirement for consideration of the

application. The appointment is given after obtaining consent from

other dependents included in the legal heirship certificate. The 1 st

respondent instead of producing the legal heirship certificate, along

with her application for compassionate appointment, had produced

Ext.P1 Succession Certificate which was only issued for the purpose

of sanctioning and disbursing the retiral benefits of the deceased

employee as the Succession Certificate was not sufficient to process

2025:KER:50630 the application for compassionate appointment. On scrutinizing the

application, certain defects were intimated to the 1 st respondent for

rectifying the same as per Ext.P3 letter dated 08.06.2021.

Aggrieved by the same, the 1 st respondent has filed the Writ

Petition.

5. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the

Writ Petition passed the following order:

"6. The facts disclosed from the statement filed by the 1st respondent would show that late Radhakrishnan died on 04.03.2010 and the date of birth of the petitioner is anterior to said date, and is on 30.10.1999. It is in the said circumstances, the respondents are not in a position to issue Legal Heirship Certificate to the petitioner. But it is evident that the petitioner has approached the Munsiff Court, Karunagappally and the said Court had delivered a judgment in OP (Succession) No.06/2011 on 17.11.2012 issuing a Succession Certificate, which include the name of the petitioner also.

7. In the circumstances stated by the 1st respondent, this Court is of the considered view that explanation given by the 1st respondent for not issuing the Legal Heirship Certificate is justified. At the same time the petitioner is seeking the Legal Heirship Certificate for the purpose of getting appointment under Compassionate Appointment Scheme. Since the petitioner has already obtained Succession Certificate, the petitioner can produce that certificate before the employer for getting compassionate appointment. For the purpose of determining dependency, the 2nd Respondent shall accept the Succession Certificate and compassionate appointment may be granted to the petitioner, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible in all respects. The writ petition is disposed of as above."

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

2025:KER:50630 the direction to the appellant herein to accept Ext.P1 Succession

Certificate for compassionate appointment of the 1 st respondent is

vitiated by errors of law and facts patent and apparent on the face of

record. The learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact that the

mother of the 1st respondent had already married one Sri.Sasidharan,

Ajith Bhavanam, Thottinuvadakkemuri, Chavara Village. The said

Sasihdaran passed away on 17.04.2002. After the death of

Sri.Sasidharan, the mother of the 1st respondent again married

Sri.Radhakrishnan, the brother of the deceased Sasidharan on

05.05.2002. The date of birth of the 1 st respondent is 30.10.1999 and the

date of marriage of mother with Sri.Radhakrishnan is 05.05.2002. The

birth of the 1st respondent took place while the legal marriage between

the mother of the 1st respondent and Sasidharan was subsisting.

Therefore, the 1st respondent cannot be considered as a dependent legal

heir of the deceased Radhakrishnan in terms of paragraph 14 of the

Scheme. The learned Single Judge has already accepted this factual and

legal position, however, came to the conclusion that the 1 st respondent is

the dependent legal heir of the deceased Radhakrishnan. The learned

Single Judge went on to hold that Succession Certificate includes the

name of the 1st respondent and therefore, 2nd respondent erred in not

issuing the legal heirship certificate. Since the 1 st respondent has already

obtained the Succession Certificate, the same can be produced before

the employer for getting compassionate appointment. For the purpose of

2025:KER:50630 determining dependency, the appellant shall accept the Succession

Certificate and compassionate appointment may be granted to the 1 st

respondent if otherwise eligible in all respects.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently

opposed the prayer and submitted that since the Succession Certificate

is already obtained in the name of the 1 st respondent, the learned Single

Judge was right in directing the employer to grant the compassionate

appointment and therefore, no interference is called for and this Writ

Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

8. Heard Sri.Antony Mukkath, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant, Sri.M.R.Sasith, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.1 and Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, learned Government

Pleader appearing for respondent no.2.

9. The candidate is obliged to submit the application

seeking compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with the

format prescribed under Appendix 'A' with a court fee stamp of Rs.2/-

affixed thereon and necessarily accompanied by the Succession

Certificate, legal heirship certificate and other documents necessary for

the purpose. In the instant case, when the 1 st respondent did not submit

the documents, the appellant herein wrote a letter, Ext.P3 dated

08.06.2021 intimating the 1st respondent to rectify the defects. Instead of

rectifying, she approached this court in the Writ Petition. It is a trite law

that compassionate appointment is carved out as exception to general

2025:KER:50630 law, therefore, the same cannot be granted unless it fulfills the

requirement as per the scheme. Basically, two well recognized

contingencies for grant of compassionate appointments are (i)

appointment on compassionate ground to meet the sudden crisis

appearing in the family on account of the death of the bread winner

while in service (ii) appointment on compassionate ground to meet the

crisis in a family on account of medical invalidation of the bread winner.

(See V.Sivamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another, [(2008)

13 SCC 730])

10. The learned Single Judge erred in directing the

appellant to accept the Succession Certificate in lieu of legal heirship

certificate which could not have been done. The Succession Certificate

has been granted for a specific purpose and not in respect of

compassionate appointment and therefore, as per the procedure, legal

heirship certificate and other relevant documents were

necessary/compulsory, before consideration of the application, which

mistake the 1st respondent failed to rectify. In such a situation, the

directions could not have been issued and the Writ Petition ought to have

been dismissed. So far as grant of compassionate appointment is

concerned, the same has to be granted within a reasonable period from

the death of the employee and that the compassionate appointment

cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time even after the

crisis is over, otherwise, the very purpose of giving such benefit to the

2025:KER:50630 family of the one who died in harness would be defeated. However, it

cannot be another source of recruitment and it cannot be treated as a

bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in the Government

Service. In the present case, the deceased employee died in the year

2010. Now, we are in 2025. Therefore, after a lapse of considerable time,

no compassionate appointment can be granted.

11. A Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the

case of Managing Director M.P. Pashchim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran

Company and others Vs. Ashiq Shah and another, [(2021) 3 MPLJ,

532] has held as under:-

"[9] It is trite that the basic purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate helping hand to the family in distress. The appointment cannot be directed to be given after more than two decades. There cannot be a reservation of vacancy till a candidate becomes major after number of years. In (2000) 7 SCC 192 (Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), the Apex Court opined as under:-

"3...this Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education Vs. Pushpendra Kumar. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 02/06/1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as a petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief. (emphasis supplied)"

2025:KER:50630 A Division Bench of this Court took same view in 2003(1) MPLJ 342 [Beni Lal Bamney Vs. Union of India and others] and 2005(4) MPLJ 575 (Riazuddin Khan Vs. State of M.P. and others].

[10] By passing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has directed consideration of respondent No.1 on compassionate ground after almost 24 years from the date of death of father of respondent No.1. In view of principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, we are unable to countenance the order of learned writ court. No directions could have been issued for consideration on compassionate ground after almost 24 years from the date of death of father of respondent No.1. The very purpose of grant of compassionate appointment will be defeated if claims of compassionate appointment after decades are entertained."

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar

Nagpal Vs. State Of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC, 138 , in

para 6 has held as under:-

"For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Kumar

Dubey Vs. State of U.P., (2009) 6 SCC, 481, has poignantly held as

under:-

"12. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis

2025:KER:50630 occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in Government service."

14. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and the

pronunciation of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the learned Single Judge

erred in directing to consider the Succession Certificate in lieu of legal

heirship certificate. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Single

Judge deserves to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. This

Writ Appeal is allowed.

15. The 1st respondent may work out the statutory

remedies in accordance with law, if available, and if so advised.

No order as to costs.

sd/-

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE

sd/-

SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE Nsd