Disposed

Joby Joseph v. the University of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Jun 2010WP(C)/655/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought employment for a deceased mother under the dying-in-harness scheme but was rejected due to marriage. Court directed respondent to restore and reconsider the application in light of a new Government Order removing marriage as a disqualification.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of petitioner's application for appointment under dying-in-harness scheme and direction to re-consider in light of Government Order G.O.(P) 45/92/P & ARD dated 23/11/1992 as modified.

Joby Joseph Vs the University of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶4

WP(C).No. 655 of 2010(F)

¶5

-------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

------------------------

¶8

JOBY JOSEPH, JOBY BHAVAN, KUNNAPUZHA, ARAMADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

---------------------------

¶12

THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KERALA UNIVERSITY BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Kss

¶16

WPC.NKO.655/2010 F

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

P1: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 23/03/2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶20

P2: COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER SHOWING HIS EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION.

¶21

P3: COPY OF THE PASS CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER SHOWING HIS EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION.

¶22

P4: COPY OF THE BOARD OF TECHNICAL CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER SHOWING HIS EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION.

¶23

P5: COPY OF THE TYPE WRITING ENGLISH LOWER CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER SHOWING HIS EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION.

¶24

P6: COPY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER SHOWING HIS EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION.

¶25

P7: COPY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER SHOWING HIS EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION.

¶26

P8: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUMALA.

¶27

P9: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶28

P10: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(P) 45/92/P & ARD, DTD. 23/11/1992 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT.

¶29

P11: COPY OF THE MEMO DTD. 23/07/2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER.

¶30

P12: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.11/11/2008 IN WPC.NO.31863/2008 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶31

P13: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 12/04/2010 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶32

R1(A): COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CLARIFICATION LETTER DTD. 16/01/2009.

¶33

R1(B): COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION LETTER ISSUED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DTD. 15/10/2009.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J

¶38

- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 655 OF 2010

¶39

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2010

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

The petitioner's mother died in harness on 11.3.2007. She was working as a Section Officer in the first respondent University. On 4.3.2009, the petitioner submitted an application seeking employment under the dying-in-harness scheme. After the receipt of the said application, the respondent issued Ext.P1 communication to the petitioner requiring him to produce the necessary documents for processing his application. On receipt of the said communication, the petitioner produced the requisite documents. In fact, the petitioner has produced Ext.P2 to P7 documents. Later, Exts.P8 and P9 were also produced. Ext.P8 is a certificate to the effect that the petitioner was depending on the deceased. Ext.P9 is the legal heir ship certificate issued by the concerned Tahsildar. Thereupon, the respondent considered the claim of the petitioner for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. After such consideration, the claim of the petitioner was rejected as per Ext.P11. Ext.P11 would show that his request was rejected on the ground that he

¶42

Wpc 655/2010 2

¶43

was married and therefore, ineligible for getting employment under the dying-in-harness scheme. In fact, the claim of the petitioner was considered in the light of Ext.P10 Government Order. Subsequently, the said Government order was modified as is obvious from Ext.P13. Ext.P13 is dated 12.4.2010. As per the same, the disqualification of married son and daughter for being considered for appointment under dying-in-harness scheme was removed and they are also now, included as eligible category. As per Ext.P13, the annual income limit was also enhanced from 3 lakhs to 4.5 lakhs.

¶44

When this matter is taken up today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined the prayer to one for a direction to the respondent to restore the application of the petitioner for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme and re-consideration of the same in the light of Ext.P13. Evidently, Ext.P10 was modified as per Ext.P13 G.O and therefore, being the married son of the deceased cannot be a disqualification for the petitioner. At the same time, the entitlement of the petitioner has to be considered in the light of the other conditions and settled position of law on the subject.

¶45

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to restore the application submitted

¶46

Wpc 655/2010 3

¶47

by the petitioner for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme and to re-consider the same in the light of Ext.P13 Government Order. While considering the said application, in case, any other document is found necessary for an appropriate consideration of the claim the respondents shall intimate the same to the petitioner and shall afford him adequate time for production of such documents. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation as to the entitlement of the petitioner for appointment under the dying in harness scheme and it is a matter to be looked into by the respondent. An order shall be passed on the petitioner's claim for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme expeditiously, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶48

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE

¶49

jma

Joby Joseph v. the University of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joby Joseph v. the University of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Parameswara Kurup and Another Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Beena James.v. Vs State of Kerala

N.K.Kutti Krishnan Nair Vs State of Kerala and Others

Aravindakshan Adiyodi P.K. Vs State of Kerala

Bijoy George Vs State of Kerala and Others

Dr. Anto T. Joseph Vs Assistant Education Officer