Disposed

Pooja Nair v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Kerala HC9 Dec 2016WP(C)/22316/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court acknowledged the petitioner's difficulty due to her mother's death-in-service during her minority and her father's remarriage. It directed the respondent to consider her claim for compassionate appointment on humanistic grounds upon submission of relevant documents.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to submit a request with supporting documents to the Deputy General Manager within two weeks for compassionate appointment consideration within three months.

Pooja Nair Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 22316 of 2011 (L)

¶6

NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

POOJA NAIR, AGED 19 YEARS,

¶8

D/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, CHARUVAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHANNANIKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.MAJEED

¶10

SRI.K.H.ASIF

¶11

NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE, 24, WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 014, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.

¶13

2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, JOS TRUST BUILDING, CHITTOOR ROAD, COCHIN - 682 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

WP(C).No. 22316 of 2011 (L)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶20

EXHIBIT P1: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.11.1986 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE S.S.L.C CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.08.2010 IN W.P(C).NO. 26616 OF 2010.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶30

W.P(C).No. 22316 of 2011

¶31

Dated this the 9^th December, 2016

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The prayers in this writ petition are as follows:

¶34

“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibits P1 to P4 and direct the respondents to grant relief claimed for assistance under the scheme of compassionate appointment or any other scheme applicable under the respondents;

¶35

ii) Declare that non-extension of the entitlements to the petitioner under the scheme of compassionate appointment or any scheme prevailing under the respondents as illegal.”

¶36

It is submitted that the petitioner is the dependent of an employee of the 1^st respondent who died-in-harness on 2.6.2000. It is stated that after the death of the petitioner's mother, her father remarried and she was living with her mother's family. After attaining majority, the petitioner had submitted application for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme, which was rejected by the respondents on the ground that there was no scheme for compassionate appointment at the time when the claim of the petitioner was taken up for consideration. It is further

¶37

¶38

WP(C).22316/11

¶39

stated that the petitioner's application for appointment was on the basis of a scheme which was not in existence and that she had not applied when the scheme was in force.

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted an application for compassionate appointment immediately on attaining majority. However, her claim was not considered on the ground that the scheme for compassionate appointment was withdrawn on 1.6.2002 and replaced by a scheme for lumpsum monetary compensation. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment, since the death of her mother was at the time when the scheme was in operation. It is further stated that the petitioner's claim is to be considered in terms of the scheme which was in force at the time of death of her mother or the scheme which is presently in force.

¶41

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that there was no scheme which would enable the petitioner to be granted appointment under the dyingin-harness scheme. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner,

¶42

WP(C).22316/11 3

¶43

who had not sought for any relief during the currency of the scheme, cannot be appointed.

¶44

I have considered the rival contentions. It is clear that the petitioner is a person whose mother died-in-harness while in the employment of the 1^st respondent on 2.6.2000. Had the petitioner been a major and entitled to apply at the time when her mother passed away, her claim would have been considered by the respondents under the compassionate scheme then in operation. However, the petitioner was a minor when her mother died. It is also stated that petitioner's father remarried and she is abandoned by him. Her survival is therefore rendered difficult due to her unfortunate situation. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the claim raised by the petitioner for compassionate appointment should be considered by the 1^st respondent on a humanitarian consideration, taking into account the peculiar circumstances pointed out by the petitioner.

¶45

The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of directing the petitioner to make a request pointing out her situation before the Deputy General Manager of the 1^st respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If

¶46

¶47

WP(C).22316/11

¶48

such a request is made by the petitioner with necessary supporting documents, the Deputy General Manager of the 1^st respondent shall take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on sympathetic consideration of the petitioner's claim within a period of three months thereafter.

¶49

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

vgs13/12

Pooja Nair v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja Nair v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

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

B. Suresh Kumar Vs Cochin Port Trust

P.R.Ramachandran Vs the State of Kerala

T.a.Prabhavathy Vs the State of Kerala

G.Smija Vs State of Kerala

The Director of Health Services Thiruvananthapuram Vs P.P. Mathai Kunju

K.C.Raveendran Vs Union of India