Disposed

Aswathy U v. State of Kerala Represented by the Secretary

Kerala HC11 Mar 2022WP(C)/8061/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition where a daughter of a deceased abkari worker sought appointment. Drawing on prior rulings recognizing daughters' rights, the Court directed the respondent Government to consider the petitioner's application filed within three months of the judgment, ensuring opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's application (Ext.P7) and pass appropriate orders within three months after hearing the petitioner.

Aswathy U Vs State of Kerala Represented by the… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 8061 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

ASWATHY U
AGED 23 YEARS
PUTHENTHODY HOUSE
EDATHARA,

¶8

PALAKKAD DISTRICT PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SHAIJU NIVAS
CHEKKUNIPADAM AKATHETHALA PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678008
BY ADVS.
DEEPU THANKAN
UMMUL FIDA
LAKSHMI SREEDHAR
SHAHNAS K.P
R.RAJANANDINI MENON

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TAXES A DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶11

2 KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD - KAWWFB REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶12

3 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES(MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING)CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SASTHAMANGALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

GP VENUGOPAL V; SC FOR BEVCO T. NAVEEN; SC FOR KAWWFB S.
KRISHNAMOORTHY

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 8061 OF 202 2

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2022

¶19

The petitioner is the daughter of an abkari worker, who committed suicide, unable to pull on with life, after the sudden closure of abkari shops based on the Governments policy. The petitioner’s father died on 22.09.2002, when the petitioner was only 4 years old. In view of the large scale suicides among abkari workers, the Government came out with a policy to rehabilitate the family by engaging the dependent son’s of perished abkari. But, the application of dependant son’s who were minor as on 07.08.2004, the date of issuance of the Government Order were rejected. The rejection were subjected to challenge before this Court resulting in Ext.P4 judgment. The contextually relevant portion of the judgment stands as under:-

¶20

“The claim of the dependents of the abkari workers who died prior to 07.08.2004 and who were minors at

¶21

WP(C) NO. 8061 OF 202 2

¶22

3

¶23

the time of inviting the applications by the Chief Welfare Fund Inspector is directed to be considered by the Government. If such claim is made within reasonable time on attaining the age of majority. The Government shall consider their claim within four months”

¶24

2. The claim being limited to the dependant sons and

¶25

in the second category of the petitioner being the daughter of an abkari worker, she was disabled from seeking appointment. While so, the daughter of another perished abkari worker filed a review petition in Ext.P4 judgment, resulting in Ext.P5 order, whereby this Court upheld the right of the daughter also for rehabilitation and declared that any stipulation in the Government order barring the daughter for seeking rehabilitation is ex facie unconstitutional, being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The order in the review petition was rendered on 05.11.2020. On coming to know about the order, the petitioner submitted her

¶26

WP(C) NO. 8061 OF 202 2

¶27

4

¶28

application on 25.05.2021. The Writ Petition is filed seeking expeditious and favourable consideration of petitioner’s application.

¶29

Learned Standing Counsel for the Beverages Corporation and learned Government Pleader would contend that the application can be considered favourably only if it is found to have been filed within reasonable time.

¶30

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the daughters of perished abkari workers became entitled for appointment only after this Court’s declaration on 05.11.2020. The petitioner having submitted her application on 25.05.2021, it should be taken to have been filed within reasonable time.

¶31

Indisputably, the right of the daughter of the perished abkari worker to claim appointment in accordance with the Government’s policy is stands affirmed by the decisions of this Court. The only other question is whether

¶32

WP(C) NO. 8061 OF 202 2

¶33

5

¶34

the petitioner had raised her claim within reasonable time. This question, as held in Ext.P4 judgment, is for the Government to decide. No doubt, while taking such decision, the Government should take into account the fact that the petitioner’s right to raise the claim for rehabilitation arose only on 05.11.2020.

¶35

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P7 application and to pass appropriate orders thereon, within three months of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

RK

WP(C) NO. 8061 OF 202 2

¶40

6

¶41

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8061/2022

¶42

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶43

`Exhibit P-1` `Exhibit P-2`	`TRUE COPY OF` `BY THE FIRST` `TRUE COPY OF` `IN THE MATHR` `28/7/2005`	`THE` `RES` `THE` `UBHO`	`GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED` `PONDENT DATED 7/08/2004` `NEWS ITEM THAT APPEARED` `OMI DAILY NEWSPAPER DATED`
`Exhibit P-3`	`TRUE COPY OF` `BY THE REGIS` `PARALI GRAMA`	`THE` `TRAR` `PAN`	`DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED` `OF BIRTH AND DEATH,` `CHAYATH`
`Exhibit P-4`	`TRUE COPY OF` `HONOURABLE C` `DATED 17/7/2`	`THE` `OURT` `020`	`JUDGMENT OF THIS` `IN W.P.NO.12287/2017`
`Exhibit P-5`	`TRUE COPY OF` `HONOURABLE C` `R.P.NO.682/2`	`THE` `OURT` `020`	`JUDGMENT OF THIS` `DATED 5/11/2020 IN` `IN W.P.NO.12287/2017`
`Exhibit P-6`	`TRUE COPY OF`	`THE`	`ORDER DATED 21/11/2021`
`Exhibit P-7`	`TRUE COPY OF` `THE PETITION`	`THE` `ER D`	`APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY` `ATED 25/05/2021`

Aswathy U v. State of Kerala Represented by the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aswathy U v. State of Kerala Represented by the Secretary

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.J.George, Vs State of Kerala

Shyam S Menon Vs Aravindakumar

State of Kerala Represented by Special Tahsildar (La)(Railways) Vs Mohanan

Yajith K.Y. Vs State of Kerala

K.a.Stephen Vs the State of Kerala

Vinod Gopalakrishnan Vs State of Kerala