Bindu C vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 4796 Ker

Kerala High Court

Bindu C vs State Of Kerala on 5 March, 2025

Author: Amit Rawal

Bench: Amit Rawal

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

                                  &

              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR

    WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1946

                          WA NO. 830 OF 2021

        AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.03.2021 IN WP(C) NO.16048 OF

2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN THE WRIT PETITION:

    1       BINDU C.,
            AGED 46 YEARS,
            W/O. LATE HAV. RADHAKRISHNAN K, R.K.BHAVAN,
            CHUNAKKARA NORTH P.O, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

    2       SINDHU B.,
            D/O. LATE HAV. RADHAKRISHNAN K, R.K.BHAVAN,
            CHUNAKKARA NORTH P.O, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.


            BY ADVS.
            GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
            A.R.DILEEP
            P.J.JOE PAUL
            MANU SRINATH




RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION:

    1       STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE
            GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

    2       SECRETARY
            SAINIK WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
            GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
 WA NO. 830 OF 2021               -2-


                                                          2025:KER:19286


    3          DIRECTOR
               DEPARTMENT OF SAINIK WELFARE, VIKAS BHAWAN,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033.

    4          ZILA SAINIK WELFARE OFFICER
               ZILA SAINIK WELFARE OFFICE,
               ARATTUVAZHY ROAD, ALAPPUZHA - 688007.


               BY ADV.
               SRI T.K.VIPINDAS, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER


        THIS    WRIT    APPEAL    HAVING     BEEN   FINALLY   HEARD    ON
05.03.2025,       THE   COURT    ON    THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WA NO. 830 OF 2021              -3-


                                                         2025:KER:19286


                                  JUDGMENT

AMIT RAWAL, J.

Present appeal is directed against the judgment

of the Single Bench dated 12.03.2021 in W.P.

(C)No.16048 of 2020, whereby the following relief sought

by the petitioner has been rejected:

"i) declare that Exts. P8 and P16 are illegal, unjust and arbitrary;

ii) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside Exts. P8 and P16;

iii) declare that Ext. P7 is unconstitutional, void and inoperative to the extent it excludes the dependents of personnel of Assam Rifles who die in combat from the benefit of employment assistance;

iv) declare that Ext. P15 is unconstitutional, void and inoperative to the extent it grants the benefit of employment assistance to the dependents of personnel of Assam Rifles who die in combat only for casualties on or after 07.06.2019;

v) declare that the exclusion of Assam Rifles

2025:KER:19286

from clause 2 (i) of Ext. P7 is grossly illegal, unjust, arbitrary and unconstitutional and declare that Assam Rifles along with other Central Armed Police Forces are liable to be included therein for the grant of employment assistance from the date of its issuance;

vi) declare that clause 3 (i) of Ext. P15 which limits the grant of employment assistance to the dependents of Assam Rifles and other paramilitary forces only if the casualties occurred on or after 07.06.2019 is illegal and unconstitutional and declare that the benefits provided thereunder s hall accrue to the benefit of the dependents of Assam Rifles and other paramilitary forces from 29.04.2002 i.e. the date of issuance of Ext.

P7;

vii) declare that the 2nd petitioner is entitled for grant of employment assistance under Ext. P15 dehors clause 3 (i) therein;

viii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing respondents to grant employment assistance to either of the petitioners under Exhibit P7, dehors the restrictions therein, within such time as may be fixed by this Honourble Court;

ix) grant such other reliefs as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court;"

2025:KER:19286

2. The short point involved in the present

case is that the appellants are the wife and daughter of

Mr.Radhakrishnan, who was a Hawildar/Operator Radio

in Assam Rifles. Unfortunately, he died while on duty.

The grievance expressed was that the dependents of the

personnel of Defence Forces, Border Security Force

(BSF) and General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF)

were entitled to compassionate employment. However,

the Government came out with a policy Ext.P7, whereby

the benefit of compassionate appointment was not

included to the personnel working with the Assam Rifles.

Though a representation was submitted, that has also

been rejected. Learned Single Bench dismissed the writ

petition by observing as under:

"15. When I evaluate the afore submissions, I am without doubt that the competence of this Court to inter-meddle with the policy decisions of the Government is extremely restricted. It is now well settled that it is only in cases where the policy is capricious or perverse or is contrary to the Constitutional scheme of this country, this Court will step in to set it aside or correct it.

16. In the case at hand, it has been explained by the Government that they first

2025:KER:19286

classified the Military, along with GREF and BSF as one category in the year 1974, taking into account the fact that these forces were directly involved in war. It was thereafter relaxed through Ext.P7 to include not merely dependents of martyred soldiers, but also those who were discluded; but the status of the categories of forces included, as in the year 1979, was maintained.

17. It is only subsequently in the year 2019, that the Government decided to include various other categories of forces and this order was issued only on 07.06.2019, which date has been retained in Ext.P15 order dated 11.03.2020, to be the cut-off, after which fatalities for the purpose of compassionate employment have been recognised.

18. I cannot find the justification offered by the Government in support of their policy to be perverse or flowed though Sri.George Varghese - the learned counsel for the petitioner - vehemently argues that while Ext.P7 order was issued on 29.04.2002, the Government ought to have included "all the categories of the Central Armed Police Forces as defined in Ext.P9 and that such non-inclusion is illegal and unconstitutional." I am afraid that I cannot find immediate favour with this contention because the Government did not issue Ext.P7 for the first time in the year 2002, but was only following the 1979 order, by which the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment was introduced. Through Ext.P7, the Government had only relaxed the criteria for granting compassionate appointment, by reckoning even disability of 50% to be one of the applicable ones; but for all other purposes, the manner and tenor of the 1979 order was maintained.

2025:KER:19286

Therefore, I cannot find the non-exclusion of the Assam Rifles in Ext.P7 to be perverse or unconscionable, particularly when there is nothing before me to show that the Government had been approached by any person at that relevant time for such inclusion. Obviously, the Government continued the 1979 order, but relaxed it to the extent afore mentioned."

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioners-appellants submitted that the Government

was remiss in not including the wards of the Assam Rifles

personnel for consideration of the compassionate

employment, as the death of Mr.Radhakrishnan was in

harness.

4. Ext.P5 application dated 09.08.2005 was

rejected vide Ext.P8 order dated 27.09.2005. Even no

explanation had come forth in not challenging the order

Ext.P8 for almost fifteen(15) years and had woken up

from the slumber to challenge it only in the year 2020.

Compassionate employment cannot be granted at the

drop of the hat, it has to be in very rare cases where

parties are not able to meet both the ends. No material

has been placed on record to satisfy that requirement in

2025:KER:19286

giving slightest ray of hope in the mind of the Court for

directing the Government to incorporate the wards of the

employees working in the Assam Rifles. However, in

paragraph No.21, while dismissing the writ petition

following findings have been given:

"21. However, I do not think that the Government is so incapacitated and it will be certainly up to them to decide if cases like this have to be given the importance it deserves, by offering support to the dependents of such personnel, who have offered the ultimate sacrifice in service of the country."

We are of the view that the finding of fact and

law arrived at by the learned Single Bench do not suffer

from any non-exercise of judicial review. Writ appeal is

bereft of the merit, dismissed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

Sd/-

K. V. JAYAKUMAR JUDGE

vv

2025:KER:19286

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE ASSAM RIFLES OBTAINED FROM HTTPS://INDIANARMY.NIC.IN/WRITEREADDAT A/DOCUMENTS/CLAWS 06011119.PDF.