Dismissed

S.Lijikumar v. the Food Corporation of India

Kerala HC20 Nov 2017WA/2223/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ appeal against the dismissal of a plea for compassionate appointment. Upholding the single Judge's finding that the appellant, whose father died in service, could not claim the post due to delay and the fact that his brother was gainfully employed. The appeal against the dismissal is accordingly dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is dismissed. No order costs.

S.Lijikumar Vs the Food Corporation of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/29TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

WA.No. 2223 of 2017 ()

¶6

JUDGMENT IN WP(C).21814/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 16-10-2014

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE WPC:

¶8

S.LIJIKUMAR, S/O.SRI K SASIDHARAN, KARAKKADU VEEDU, T.C.48/815, KUNCHIRAVILA, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.MINI GOPINATH

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC:

¶11

1. THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER PERSONNEL, HEAD QUARTERS, 16-20 BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI- 110001.

¶12

2. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DISTRICT OFFICE, VALIATHURA, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695008.

¶13

3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SOUTH), FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, NO.3., HADDOWS ROAD, CHENNAI-6.

¶14

4. THE ZONAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, CHENNAI-6.

¶15

5. THE AREA MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DISTRICT OFFICE, VALIATHURA, VALLAKKADAVU P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695008.

¶16

6. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶17

R1-R5 BY ADVS. SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN (SR.) SRI.K.M.ABDUL MAJEED, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

P.N. RAVINDRAN & DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JJ

¶21

¶22

W.A. No. 2223 of 2017

¶23

- - - - Dated this the 20^th day of November, 2017

¶24

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.

¶27

The appellant is the unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.(C). No.21814 of 2014 wherein he had prayed for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme as the legal heir of his deceased father who passed away while in service, on 27.2.1997. The appellant who was then aged 23 years and was an undergraduate with a pass in KGTE (Higher English) applied for compassionate appointment. Even though he was interviewed pursuant to Ext.P2 call letter, his application for compassionate appointment was rejected by Ext.P3 order dated 3.7.1998. The appellant was informed that in view of the decision taken by the Head Quarters of the Food Corporation of India to restrict compassionate appointments to 5% of the direct recruitment vacancies, his application for appointment cannot be considered. The appellant did not challenge Ext.P3.

¶28

Later, the Food Corporation of India issued Ext.P6 circular whereby revised consolidated instructions were issued for compassionate appointment under dying-in-harness scheme. The appellant thereupon submitted Exts. P7 and P8 representations. The District Manger, Thiruvananthapuram, the second respondent in

¶29

W.A. No.2223 of 2017 -2-

¶30

the writ petition forwarded the said representations to the Zonal Manager with a letter of recommendation. The petitioner again submitted Exts. P10 and P12 representations. By Ext.P13 order dated 9.1.2006 the said representations were also rejected. He again represented by submitting Exts.P14 and P15 representations. Thereupon, Ext.P17 reply dated 7.2.2011 was given to the petitioner whereby he was informed that his application for compassionate appointment has been turned down by order passed on 8.12.2009. The appellant thereupon filed W.P.(C).No.5125 of 2012 in this court challenging the proceedings dated 9.1.2006, a copy of which was produced and marked as Ext.P13 therein. By Ext.P18 judgment delivered on 15.3.2012, a learned single Judge of this court set aside Ext.P13 on the short ground that a counter affidavit has not been filed and the impugned order does not disclose any reason for rejection. The respondents were directed to reconsider the application for compassionate appointment. That in turn led to Ext.P19 order dated 23.7.2012.

¶31

The appellant challenged Ext.P19 order by filing W.P.(C). No.20482 of 2012. By Ext.P24 judgment delivered on 15.1.2014, a learned single Judge of this court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the Executive Director (South), Food Corporation of India, Chennai, to reconsider the application for compassionate

¶32

W.A. No.2223 of 2017 -3-

¶33

appointment in the light of Exts.P22 and the facts set out in Ext.P23 representation. The Executive Director considered the appellant's case afresh and rejected it by Ext.P25 order dated 23.4.2014. The appellant thereupon filed W.P.(C).No.21814 of 2014 which was dismissed by the impugned judgment. The learned single Judge has, after considering the facts narrated above held that it was the authorities who are to be blamed for the appellant repeatedly representing in the matter of compassionate appointment. It is evident from the materials on record that his first application for compassionate appointment which was made immediately following his father's death was rejected by Ext.P3 order dated 3.7.1998. The appellant did not challenge Ext.P3. It was only when the subsequent representations were rejected that he moved this court. Subsequent representations were given having regard to the change in the guidelines for compassionate appointment issued by the Food Corporation of India.

¶34

After hearing learned counsel appearing for the appellant and after going through the materials on record, we are in agreement with the learned single Judge that the appellant cannot, at this distance of time, seek or be granted compassionate appointment. As held by the Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal and Another v. State of Haryana and Others (1994 (4) SCC 138), compassionate

¶35

W.A. No.2223 of 2017 -4-

¶36

appointment is not a method of recruitment and that compassionate appointment can be sought and given only to overcome the immediate financial crisis of the family of the employee following the death of the bread winner. It is not in dispute that the appellant's brother is gainfully employed and substantial benefits were extended to the family of the deceased employee following his death.

¶37

In such circumstances, we find no reason or justification to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge. The view taken by the learned single Judge cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference in an intra court appeal. The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶38

sd/- P.N. RAVINDRAN,

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶41

S.Lijikumar v. the Food Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Lijikumar v. the Food Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayana Das Vs V.U. Prakasan

Ramesan V.C. Vs Abdul Majeed P.M.

India Coffee Board Workers Co-Operative Society Ltd. NO.4227 Vs the State of Kerala

Philomina George Vs Annie Vincent

K.F.C. Professional Forum, Rep.by the Working President, v.Prathapachandran Vs Premnath Ravindranath

The Mulloor Rural Co-Operative Society Ltd. No.T 1499 Vs the Thiruvananthapuram District Co-Operative Bank