Dismissed

Rezmin Rasheed.K v. Kerala State Electiricty Board Limited

Kerala HC3 Oct 2019WP(C)/2140/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Kerala dismissed writ petition challenging rejection of petitioner's compassionate appointment application. Court held no vested right exists and application was validly rejected due to delay and family income exceeding KSEBL Board Order limits at the time of consideration.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition failed and dismissed against Exts.P9 and P12 orders.

Rezmin Rasheed.K Vs Kerala State Electiricty… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 11TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.2140 OF 2019(N)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

REZMIN RASHEED.K, AGED 23 YEARS, D/O. LATE ABDUL RASHEED K, RASHEED MAHAL, AREEKAD, THALAKADATHOOR (P.O), TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 103.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.VANDANA MENON

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KERALA STATE ELECTIRICTY BOARD LIMITED REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VAIDUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.

¶11

2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) , VAIDUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.

¶12

3 DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 101.

¶13

4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 101.

¶14

5 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶15

R1-4 BY SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.08.2019, THE COURT ON 03.10.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.2140 OF 2019(N)

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 3rd day of October 2019

¶21

This Writ Petition is filed challenging Exts.P9 and P12 orders, by which petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected. The petitioner's late father was working as Sub Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited ['KSEBL' for short] and he passed away on 03.05.2011. The petitioner was a minor at that time. She had submitted an application for employment assistance on 12.09.2014, which is produced as Ext.P5. By Ext.P6 order dated 28.09.2015, the petitioner was asked to submit certain details. It was further stated in Ext.P6 that the details may be furnished after the petitioner has completed her studies if she wishes to be considered for the post of Sub Engineer. Since the petitioner did not wish to be considered for appointment as Office Attendant she passed B.Tech in 2017 and submitted Ext.P7 representation for employment assistance. She was required to submit her income

¶22

¶23

WP(C).No.2140 OF 2019(N)

¶24

certificate. Thereafter by Ext.P9 order dated 28.07.2018, the application was rejected stating that it was not submitted within the prescribed time limit and since the income certificate dated 02.08.2017 exceeds the prescribed income limit for compassionate appointment in the KSEBL. The petitioner thereafter obtained Ext.P10 income certificate to show that their income in the year 2011-'12 was only Rs.4,32,000/-. She submitted an appeal before the respondent which was also rejected by Ext.P12. It was stated that Government Order dated 05.02.2013 providing for enhancement of upper income limit had not been adopted for implementation in the KSEBL and that the Government order cannot be made applicable for compassionate appointment in the Board. Petitioner relies on Ext.P13 Government Order to contend that the income limit for compassionate appointment is Rs.4.5 lakhs and since the petitioner's family income during 2011-'13 was only Rs.4,32,000/-, she is entitled for appointment.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection

¶26

WP(C).No.2140 OF 2019(N)

¶27

¶28

of the petitioner's application on the ground that it is time barred is completely vitiated and unsustainable. It is contended that when the petitioner had approached the KSEBL immediately on becoming major, she had been told that she can approach again after securing the qualifications for appointment as Sub Engineer. It is, therefore, contented that the respondent could not reject the application preferred by the petitioner on the ground that it is belated. It is further contended that the petitioner's family income during 2011-'12 was only Rs.4,32,000/- and that as such the contention with regard to exceeding of family income is also not correct.

¶29

A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the respondents 1 to 4. It is contended that the application preferred by the petitioner for compassionate appointment was liable to be considered only in accordance with the Regulations issued by the KSEBL with regard to the compassionate employment. It is stated that the petitioner had been required to produce documents by Ext.P6 communication but she chose not to

¶30

¶31

WP(C).No.2140 OF 2019(N)

¶32

respond to the same. It is stated that in accordance with the Board Orders in force, including Exts.R2(c) and R2(d), the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. It is stated that Ext.R2(d) specifies the manner of consideration of application. It is stated that the petitioner herself had produced income certificate to show that the annual income of the family was Rs.9,92,644/- and it had exceeded the income limit of Rs.6 lakhs prescribed in the KSEBL w.e.f.04.01.2012. The said Board Order is produced as Ext.R2(f). It is stated that the application preferred by the petitioner was liable to be considered in accordance with the norms accepted as on the date when the application is considered and that as such the claim of the petitioner that her family income as on the date of death of her father ought to have been taken into account is completely without merits.

¶33

The learned standing counsel for the respondent KSEBL places reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in State Bank of India Vs. Raj Kumar [(2010) 11 SCC 661], Union of India Vs.

¶34

WP(C).No.2140 OF 2019(N)

¶35

¶36

B. Kishore [(2011) 13 SCC 133] and Director of Education [Secondary] Vs. Pushpendra Kumar [(1998) 5 SCC 192]. It

¶37

is submitted that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment by merit and that as such only those candidates who satisfied all requirements of the Scheme would be entitled to be considered for such appointment.

¶38

I have considered the contentions advanced. It is not on dispute before me that there is no vested right for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme. The claim for compassionate appointment is liable to be considered in strict compliance with the Regulations or the Scheme in force. The respondents have raised specific contentions that the Scheme in force specifies the age limit as also an income limit for a claim under the Scheme to be considered favourably. The petitioner had admittedly submitted the application in the year 2014. However by Ext.P6 communication she was informed that in case she chose to pursue appointment as Sub Engineer she can produce records after securing the qualifications. She

¶39

¶40

WP(C).No.2140 OF 2019(N)

¶41

subsequently submitted Ext. P7 application. Ext.P7 application was liable to be considered in accordance with the Scheme in force as on the relevant date. When the application was considered, it was found that it was belated going by the Scheme in force as also petitioner's family income exceeded the upper limit prescribed in Ext.R2(f) Board Order. Even in case Ext.P6 is pressed into service to contend that the application of the petitioner at Ext.P7 ought to have been considered without insisting on the time frame, I am of the opinion that the rejection of the petitioner's application on the ground that her family income exceeded the limit as provided in the Board Order in force at the relevant time cannot be said to be an arbitrary exercise. The contention of the petitioner that Rs.4.20 lakhs was the annual income of the petitioner's family at the time of death of her father, according to me, will not help the petitioner, in view of the fact that the Board Order in force prescribed an income limit for the family and the petitioner's family income had exceeded such limit of Rs.6 lakhs at the time when Ext.P7 application was submitted.

¶42

WP(C).No.2140 OF 2019(N)

¶43

¶44

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the challenge raised in this writ petition as against Exts.P9 and P12 orders must fail. The Writ Petition fails and same is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

kmd

WP(C).No.2140 OF 2019(N)

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX

¶52

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶53

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE TIRUR MUNICIPALIT OF BIRTH OF THE P	BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE Y DT. 1-8-1995 SHOWING THE DATE ETITIONER AS 3-7-1995
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD OF SECONDAR PETITIONER COMPLE EDUCATION IN 2013	CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CENTRE Y EDUCATION SHOWING THAT THE TED THE CENTRE BOARD OF SECONDARY .
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE INS DEVELOPMENT, COLL DATED 9-8-2017	COURSE AND CONDUCT CERTIFICATE TITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCE EGE OF ENGINEERING, CHENGANNUR
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER BY THE TECHNOLOGY DATED	DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND 15-12-2017
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE	APPLICATION DATED 12-09-2014 PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE THE 2ND RESPONDEN	ORDER DATED 28-09-2015 ISSUED BY T.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE OF THE APPLI BY THE PETITIONER EMPLOYMENT UNDER	CATION DATED 14-08-2017 SUBMITTED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR THE DYING IN HARNESS SCHEME.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT DATED	ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND 16-10-2017
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE THE 2ND RESPONDEN	ORDER DATED 28-07-2018 ISSUED BY T.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER,	INCOME CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE THANALUR DATED 1-12-2017
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE	REPRESENTATION DATED 7-8-2018 PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE THE 2ND RESPONDEN	ORDER DATED 12-11-2018 ISSUED BY T.

¶54

WP(C).No.2140 OF 2019(N)

¶55

¶56

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 5-2-2013 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶57

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶58

EXHIBIT R2(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME CERTIFICATE DATED 1-10- 12.
EXHIBIT R2(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME CERTIFICATE DATED 19- 11-12
EXHIBIT R2(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NUMBER B.O(FM) NO.1041/2012 (ESTT.II.2818/2011) DATED 22-05- 2012.
EXHIBIT R2(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.PS1.3146/83 DATED 29-4-1985.
EXHIBIT R2(E)	TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME CERTIFICATE DATED 2-8- 17 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, TANALUR.
EXHIBIT R2(F)	TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER (DB) NO.2975/2017(PSI/3766/2007) DATED 27-11-2017.
EXHIBIT R2(G)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NUMBER (CMD) NO.85/2018 (ESTT.11/3126/2018)DATED 19-07-2018.
EXHIBIT R2(H)	TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD NUMBER B.O.9FB) NO.190/2011 (PSI/3766/2007) DATED 14-01-2011.
EXHIBIT R2(I)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NUMBER G.O.(P) NO.12/99/PAND ARD DATED 24-05-1999.
EXHIBIT R2(J)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NUMBER B.O(DB) NO.2155/2014(ESTT.II.3290/2014)DATED 11-08- 2014.
EXHIBIT R2(K)	TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE DATED 24- 10-2017 ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2011 BY THE DDO.

Rezmin Rasheed.K v. Kerala State Electiricty Board Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rezmin Rasheed.K v. Kerala State Electiricty Board Limited

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

C.S.Madhusoodhanan, Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

The Sukhiya Muhammadiya Trust Vs the District Forest Officer

The Kudayathoor Service Co-Operative Bank Limited NO.3316, Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies(General)

V.v.Anish, Vs State of Kerala

N. Gopalakrishnan, Vs State of Kerala

M.H.Shajahan Rawther, Vs the State of Kerala