The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner, who was the widow of a soldier killed while traveling to an operational area. The Court held that the accident at a railway station did not qualify under state guidelines requiring death in an operational area and noted no vested right to appointment.
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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/16TH CHAITHRA, 1938
OP.No. 1655 of 2003 (V)
PETITIONER(S):
C.ASHAKUMARI, W/O.LATE NB SUB.R.RAGHUNATHA KURUP, AGED 31 YEARS,, MADATHIL PADEETHATHIL HOUSE, PALLANA P.O.,, TRIKKUNNAPUZHA.
BY ADVS. SRI.RAJA VIJAYAKRISHNAN SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN SRI.T.A.GEORGE JOSEPH SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT.,, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SAINIK WELFARE)DEPARTMENT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SAINIK WELFARE, VIKAS BHAVAN,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE CHIEF RECORD OFFICER, ARTILLERY RECORDS, NASIK ROAD, CAMP 422 102.
R,R3 BY ADV. SRI.PRINCE CHAKRAMPILLY, ADDL.CGSC R, BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER R,R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.THOMASMATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SR.PANEL R,R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG R,R.3 BY ADV. SRI.S.R.AJITH, ADDL.CGSC R3&4 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.BALAN, CGC
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP.No. 1655 of 2003 (V)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBTS
P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ATTRIBUTABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 16.10.1999 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.9.1998 ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND ALSO TO THE DIRECTOR, ARTILLERY DIRECTORATE
P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.9.1999 OF THE ZILA SAINIK WELFARE OFFICER ADDRESSED TO THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE. ARTILLERY RECORDS
P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.3.2000 OF THE ZILA SAINIK WELFARE OFFICER
P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.3.2000 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO 3RD RESPONDENT
P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED .10.2000 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
P7: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.10.2000 ISSUED BY THE ZILLA SAINIK WELFARE OFFICER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
P8: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.11.2000 ISSUED BY ZILLA SAINIK WELFARE OFFICER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.12.2000 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR RECORD OFFICER, ARTILLERY RECORDS TO THE PETITIONER
P10: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.2.2001 OF THE 2ND RESPNDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
P11: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.4.2001 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SAINIK WELFARE DEPARTMENT)
P12: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.4.2001 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
P13: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.9.2001 ISSUED FROM 210 ROCKET REGIMENT TO THE PETITIONER
P14: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.3.2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
P15: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.09.2002 MADE BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER
...2
OP.No. 1655 of 2003 (V)
-2-
P16: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.10.2002 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
P17: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) 110/2002/GAD DATED 29.4.2002 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
P18: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) BO 315/96/GAD DATED 12.11.1996
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
R1: TRUE COPY OF THE ARTY RECORDS LETTER NO.1546/T-7/JC-257263F/NE-2 DATED 1.12.2000
R2: TRUE COPY OF ARTY RECORDS ETTER NO.1546/T-7/JC-257263/45/NE-2 DATED 28.7.2001
R3: TRUE COPY OF ARMY HEAD QUARTERS LETTER NO.A/10001/1/ARMY 3D DATED 1.1.2002
R4: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.A/10001/ARTY 3D DATED 8.11.2000 ISSUED FROM ARMY HEADQUARTERS
R5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1546/T-7/JC-257263/11/NE-2 DATED 18.10.1999
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
JJJ
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
O.P. No. 1655 of 2003 (V)
Dated this the 5th day of April, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is before this Court seeking compassionate appointment on the death of the petitioner's husband, who was run over by a train when he was proceeding to the operational/field area. The death occurred on 18.01.1997, when the deceased was proceeding to an operational area. By Ext.P1, he was detailed to attend the 'Pinaka trials' to he held at Balasore. It was while he was getting down at Balasore railway station that he fell down and was run over by the train on 18.01.1997.
O.P. No.1655/2003
-2-
which is the limit prescribed under the Central Government scheme. The petitioner herein claims appointment on the basis of Ext.P18 order with the State Government.
points out that the petitioner having died in an unfortunate accident, would not be covered under Ext.P18, going by the eligibility conditions. The eligibility conditions in G.O.(P) No. 315/96/GAD dated 12.11.1996 is as follows:
O.P. No.1655/2003
-3-
conditions circumstances of which are identical to activities during operational engagements. The operation area will be as decided by the Union government from time to time. Encounters in such circumstances when Defence/CRPF/BSF personnel are called in to assist Civil power may also be included for giving employment assistance under the scheme. Note: In the case of the dependent of the disabled personnel; the dependent of the ex-service men who had sustained injury/dis-ability over 50 percent is only eligible for the benefit of the scheme.”
in action or in operational areas would be covered under the ambit of eligibility as prescribed in the notification. The operational area has to be decided by the Central Government and it cannot be said that the railway station, in which the accident occurred, is an operational area of the Army. Further, it is to be noticed that the Full Bench decision of this Court in
O.P. No.1655/2003
-4-
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Rajesh - 2015
(2) KLT 478 has held that none has a vested right for compassionate appointment and there can be no appointment against the scheme, since the spirit and tenor behind such scheme is to provide immediate succor to the family who is rendered impecunious for
reason of the death of the sole bread winner.
The writ petition, hence, would stand dismissed for all the above reasons. No Costs.
Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
jjj 6/4/16
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a dependent is eligible for compassionate appointment under State Government guidelines when the breadwinner died in a railway accident while proceeding to an operational area.
Whether the railway station where the accident occurred constitutes an operational area within the meaning of the Central Government scheme.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. RajeshReferred¶67
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Rajesh - 2015 (2) KLT 478
C. ASHAKUMARI
STATE OF KERALA
THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SAINIK WELFARE
THE CHIEF RECORD OFFICER, ARTILLERY RECORDS
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
