Petitioner sought compassionate appointment for his deceased father. Previous judgment directed consideration with policy prevailing at application time (Jan 2000). This court held Ext.P6 rejection was valid as it applied policy of that time, dismissing the present petition.
Petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was rejected; no further relief granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932
WP(C).No. 1618 of 2008(P) -------------------------
PETITIONER(S): ---------------
B.BINU, S/O.LATE EXGS-155037 PNR N.BABU, KORASSERIL KANDATHIL HOUSE, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SMT.SABINA JAYAN
RESPONDENT(S):
ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASG
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 1618 of 2008
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS
| EXT.P1- | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.155037/NB/67/E5 DATED 26.11.93 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER |
|---|---|
| EXT.P2- | TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 28, MAY 2002 TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER |
| EXT.P3- | TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 31ST AUGUST 2002 TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER |
| EXT.P4- | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.7.02 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT |
| EXT.P5- | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.7.07 IN W.P.(C).16005/04 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT |
| EXT.P6- | TRUE COPY OF THE SPEAKING ORDER DATED 12.12.07 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT |
(TRUE COPY)
P.A TO JUDGE
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
W.P.(C).1618/2008
Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010
JUDGMENT
Petitioner's father was working as Pioneer in the General
Reserved Engineering Force and he expired on 18.12.1991. On attaining the majority in January 2000, petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds and that was rejected by Exts.P3 and P4. Those orders were challenged before this Court in W.P.(C).16005/2004. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment clarifying that the claim of the petitioner should be decided with reference to the policy prevailing at the time of occurrence of cause of action or at least at the time of filing the application. On that basis, claim was ordered to be considered, ignoring the change in the policy. Matter was again considered and was rejected by Ext.P6. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition.
W.P.(C).1618/08
2
Training, Government of India, on 9th October, 1998 and 3rd December, 1999. On that basis, it has been held that the claim of the petitioner is highly belated and therefore, cannot be considered. The only question that arises for consideration is whether Ext.P6 has been issued, complying with the directions contained in Ext.P5 judgment. As already seen, this Court directed the respondents to apply the policy prevailing either at the time of occurrence of cause of action or at the time when application was filed. The application was filed by the petitioner in January 2000. Ext.P6 order has been passed relying on the Office memorandum issued in 1998 and 1999. Therefore, it can be seen that Ext.P6 was passed applying the policy prevailing at the time when application was submitted. If so the contention that by passing Ext.P6, respondent did not comply with the directions of this Court as per Ext.P5, cannot be accepted. Therefore the writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so.
Needless to say that rejection of the claim of the petitioner as per Ext.P6, will not have effect on his eligibility to make
W.P.(C).1618/08
3
application as SON CASE for a suitable post based on his
educational qualification, as and when vacancies are notified.
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge
mrcs
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's compassionate appointment claim under Ext.P6 complied with the directions in Ext.P5 judgment regarding the policy applicable at the time of application filing
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.(C).16005/04Referred¶2
B.Binu
Union of India
Board of Road Development
GREF Centre
BRTF
Antony Dominic
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
