Dismissed

Shaji v. K.S.E.B.

Kerala HC20 Dec 2016WP(C)/7391/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition filed by a deponent seeking appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme for the Kerala State Electricity Board. The court found the claim untenable because the father died after retirement, not during employment, and the claim was made long after the death. The applicant did not suffer immediate distress, meriting rejection as per binding precedents.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Shaji Vs K.S.E.B. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 7391 of 2008 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER :-

¶7

SHAJI, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.GANGADHARAN, KAIPADA HOUSE, K.K.JUNCTION, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.M.MANOJKUMAR (CHELAKKADAN) SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENTS :-

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

R BY ADVS.SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB

¶13

SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 7391 of 2008 (E)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :-

¶18

EXHIBIT P1 :- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.07.2001 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MANJERI TO CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT MEDICAL BOARD, MALAPPURAM.

¶19

EXHIBIT P2 :- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25.08.2003 ISSUED BY CHIEF ENGINEER(HRM) DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO PRODUCE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS FOR APPOINTMENT.

¶20

EXHIBIT P3 :- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28.10.2004 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER SEEKING PRODUCTION OF CERTIFICATES TO PROVE THE DATE OF BIRTH AND QUALIFICATION ETC.

¶21

EXHIBIT P4 :- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 21.12.2006 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) TO EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PONNANI.

¶22

EXHIBIT P5 :- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19.01.2007 ISSUED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PONNANI TO CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶23

EXHIBIT P6 :- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.02.2008 RECEIVED FROM THE RESPONDENTS.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-

¶25

EXHIBIT R2(A) :- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD, DATED 27.09.2002.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

RKJ

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶30

============================

¶31

W.P.(C)No.7391 of 2008

¶32

============================ Dated this the 20^th day of December, 2016

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The petitioner had applied for appointment in the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board under the dyingin-harness scheme. According to the petitioner, his father was working as Senior Line Fitter, Electrical Major Section, Ponnani and he unfortunately died while in employment on 07.02.2000. The petitioner's application for appointment was considered by the Board, and an order, namely Ext.P6, was issued stating that it has been declined because the death of the petitioner's father was not during the course of employment under the Board. This order has been impugned by the petitioner.

¶35

I have heard the learned counsel appearing

¶36

for the petitioner, Mr.Ram Prasad Unni, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board.

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C)No.7391 of 2008

¶39

On an examination of Ext.P6, it is obvious that the father of the petitioner met with an accident while he was in service and he was hospitalised and then retired subsequently. He appears to have unfortunately died after his retirement and, it is therefore, the Board has taken a stand in Ext.P6 that the claim of the petitioner for employment cannot be considered under the dying-inharness scheme, since his father did not die during the course of the employment under the Board. The reasons stated in Ext.P6, if true, would obviously deny any right of the petitioner to claim employment under the dying-inharness scheme. I see that the death of the father of the petitioner occurred in the year 2000 and any claim for dyingin-harness scheme, at this point of time, namely about 17 years later, cannot be considered in view of the binding precedents of the Honourable Supreme Court of India which emphatically declare that any such employment can be offered or given only to tide over the immediate distress of the family consequent to the death of the sole earning member. This case do not qualify to be considered to be one

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C)No.7391 of 2008

¶42

in such circumstances. I therefore, do not see any illegality in Ext.P6 and compelled to reject the claim of the petitioner and to dismiss this writ petition.

¶43

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs and the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶46

rkj

¶47

//TRUE COPY//

¶48

//P.A. TO JUDGE//

Shaji v. K.S.E.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji v. K.S.E.B.

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

K.v.Sivakumar Vs State of Kerala

T.L. Joy Vs District Collector

Joseph Leon Vs Divisional Forest Officer Aqnd Another

Shoukath Hussaine Vs Kerala Healod Workers Welfare Board Rep.

Dr.K.M.Thankachan Vs State of Kerala

V.J.Wilson Vs the Special Tahsildar (La)