Disposed

Santhosh v. Union of India

Kerala HC2 Nov 2016WP(C)/9734/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner, the son of a deceased GRF employee. Acknowledging the delay in application due to the petitioner's minority, the court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the application on merits within three months under revised 2013 guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd respondent to consider petitioner's compassionate appointment application on merits within three months.

Santhosh Vs Union of India — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/11TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 9734 of 2006 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SANTHOSH, S/O. LATE EX-GS1288 PNR M.SADANANDAN, RESIDING AT CHIRACKAL HOUSE, KADATHOOR, KULASEKHARAPURAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI

¶9

SRI.GEORGE T. THACHETT SMT.SABINA JAYAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SURFACE TRANSPORT, NEW DELHI.

¶12

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER ROADS, SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN, RING ROAD, DELHI CANTT, NEW DELHI-110 010.

¶13

3. THE COMMANDANT GREF CENTRE, DIGHI CAMP, PUNE-15.

¶14

4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PROJECT PUSHPAK, C/O 99 APO.

¶15

5. THE OFFICER COMMANDING, 508 SS AND TRANSPORT COY (GREF), C/O. 99 APO.

¶16

R1-R5 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL SMT. O.M.SALINA, CGSC

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

msv/

¶19

WP(C).No. 9734 of 2006 (H)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.13.8.2000 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER.

¶23

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1456/04/25/EIR DTD.21.5.2005 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER.

¶24

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.14014/19/2002ESTT(D) M DTD.5.3.2003.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶26

EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AKRGFWA/2005/CA/MS/18 DTD.28.4.2005.

¶27

EXT.R3(b): TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.14014/6/ 94 ESTT(D) DTD.9.10.1998.

¶28

EXT.R3(c): TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.14014/6/ 94 ESTT(D) DTD.3.12.1999.

¶29

EXT.R3(d): TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM D (LAB)ID NO.19(1)/00 D(LAB) DTD.12.2.2001.

¶30

EXT.R3(e): TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION LETTER NO.12701/EMP POL/DGBR/64/EG2 DTD.8.7.2002.

¶31

EXT.R3(f): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.MOD ID NO.19(4)/ 824-1998 D/LAB DTD.9.3.2001.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

msv/

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶36

----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 9734 of 2006

¶37

Dated this the 2^nd November, 2016

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

The writ petitioner, who is the son of an employee of the General Reserve Engineer Force, who expired while in service on 27.7.2000, seeks compassionate appointment. The petitioner states that he was aged 13 years when his father passed away. An application was preferred seeking compassionate appointment. However, by Exhibit P2, the petitioner's mother was informed that the request made for compassionate appointment for the petitioner was submitted after one year from the date of death of her husband and therefore, going by the instructions issued by the Government with regard to compassionate appointment, the said claim could not be considered.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was aged only 13 years as on the date of death of his father. It is further submitted that an application had been preferred before the respondents immediately after Exhibit P2 seeking compassionate appointment under the revised scheme. The petitioner claims that he would be entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment on the basis of his application, which was submitted immediately on his attaining majority.

¶41

¶42

WP(C).9734/06

¶43

It is submitted by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents that going by the revised guidelines for compassionate appointment vide O.M. dated 16.1.2013, the time limit prescribed for making applications for compassionate appointment has been reviewed and subject to availability of vacancies, all applications are to be considered on merits.

¶44

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to take up the application submitted by the petitioner for appointment under the compassionate employment scheme and to consider and pass orders on the same on merits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To enable the 2^nd respondent to take a decision as stated above, the petitioner shall produce a copy of the application preferred by him along with a copy of this judgment before the 2^nd respondent for compliance. The petitioner is also free to make any further representation that he wishes to make and forward to the 2^nd respondent along with the copy of this judgment.

¶45

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶46

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

vgs9/11

Santhosh v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh v. Union of India

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

Mary Sindhu A.S. Vs State of Kerala

N.Premakumari Vs State of Kerala

M.v.Jose Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Shaju.P.Thomas Vs M.G.University

Kurukkat Karunakara Kurup Vs the State of Kerala

K.v.Poulose Vs the Director of Collegiate Education