Allowed

Babitha Sam v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Oct 2014WA/320/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes an order rejecting a compassionate appointment application on the sole ground that the daughter was married and living with her husband. The court directed reconsideration within three months, holding marriage is not a bar, though dependency must be weighed.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order rejecting the compassionate appointment application. Direct reinstatement/reconsideration within 3 months. Directed that the application shall not be rejected on the ground of delay.

Babitha Sam Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/15TH ASWINA, 1936

¶7

WA.No. 320 of 2010 ( )

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22454/2009 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 07-08-2009

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER :-

¶10

BABITHA SAM, S/O.SIVANKUTTY,

¶11

SAROVARAM, PAZHOOR JUNCTION, KANNIMEL CHERRY SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :-

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM.

¶16

3. THE DIRECTOR AND GENERAL MANAGER, UNITED ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., PALLIMUKKU, KOLLAM.

¶17

R3 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN

¶18

R1 & R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS

¶19

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-102014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

jvt

¶21

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN &

¶22

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶23

W.A. No.320 of 2010

¶24

Dated this the 7^th day of October 2014

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

¶27

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent, which is a Public Sector Undertaking. Submissions are made touching the entire aspect of the matter.

¶28

The petitioner's father died while serving the 3^rd respondent. She filed an application for compassionate appointment. Since there was delay in making such an application, the petitioner sought condonation of delay. The Government accepted that request. Ultimately, the application for compassionate appointment was rejected on the sole ground that the petitioner was married and was

¶29

W.A. No.320 of 2010

¶30

-: 2 :-

¶31

living with her husband. That was communicated to the petitioner as per Ext.P4. She challenged that decision and moved before the learned single Judge.

¶32

The learned single Judge noted that the application before the Government for compassionate appointment was highly belated.

¶33

The 3^rd respondent is a Public Sector Undertaking, in which the Government of Kerala is the majority shareholder. It is a State Government Company. The State Government exercised its discretion to condone the delay in filing application for compassionate appointment. It did not hold that the ground of delay is a reason to reject the application.

¶34

Under the afore-noticed facts and circumstances, the judicial review process at the hands of the learned single Judge ought to have been focused primarily on the issue as to whether the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment could have been rejected for

¶35

W.A. No.320 of 2010

¶36

-: 3 :-

¶37

the reason that she was married and was living with her husband. We say so because, impugned Ext.P4 does not disclose any other reason.

¶38

In the aforesaid view of the matter, the submission of the appellant/petitioner commends acceptance and we are of the view that the application of the petitioner deserves to be re-considered. We may also note that, in a dispute of same nature, the Government have themselves concluded that the fact that a son or a daughter is married is not a ground to deny compassionate appointment. However, the dependency and other relevant factors may have to be weighed by the competent authority. To pave way for that, Ext.P4 needs to be quashed.

¶39

In the result, the impugned judgment is vacated and Ext.P4 in the writ petition is quashed, paving way for re-consideration of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment. It is directed that the said application shall not be rejected on the ground of delay.

¶40

W.A. No.320 of 2010

¶41

-: 4 :-

¶42

However, the competent authority, among the respondents, will be at liberty to consider all other necessary grounds and ingredients in the course of consideration of that application, in accordance with law; including the government orders that govern the situation. This shall be done within a period of three months from today, without fail.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶45

Sd/BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶46

Jvt

Babitha Sam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babitha Sam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Hakkim Vs the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.

D.Madhavan Nair Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Sakkariya Vs K.K.Manikantan and Another

The Commandant Officer Vs K.N. Janardhanan

State Environment Protection Council Vs the State of Kerala

K.K.Balakrishnan Vs Cochin Devaswom Board