Midhun Kumar S.S. v Union of India and others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2022-01-11
Court Decision / Holding: In the result the writ petition is dismissed.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Midhun Kumar S.S.

Respondents

The Union of India represented by Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs
The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force
The Assistant Inspector General, CISF
The Commandant, CISF Unit, V.S.S.C. Thumpa, Thumpa, Thiruvananthapuram District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. R.B. Rajesh

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. P. Vijayakumar (ASG of India)
• Adv. N.S. Daya Sindhu Sreehari (CGC)
• Adv. Shree Hari (ASG)
• Adv. S. Manu

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court writ petition under Article 226 challenging the denial of compassionate appointment to the petitioner in CISF following the death of his father, Sreedharan Nair, who served as a constable. The petition traces multiple administrative decisions beginning with Ext.P2 (1993) rejecting the widow’s initial compassionate appointment claim, followed by Ext.P3, Ext.P5 (2004), and Ext.P9 (2018) reflecting attempts to secure relief under revised schemes. The petitioner, now an adult, argues that the compassionate appointment scheme is designed to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee and that the earlier rejections were arbitrary and not reasoned. Respondents contend that Ext.P9 was belated (filed in 2018 for a death in 1992) and that Ext.R4(d) rightly rejects it on the ground of extreme delay. They also rely on judgments of the Supreme Court (Ashish Awasthi; Gouri Devi) to emphasize that relief must be considered under the scheme prevailing at the time of death and that delays defeat the scheme’s objective. The learned Judge acknowledges the illegality of the initial rejection but declines to interfere with Ext.P2 and Ext.P5 since those orders were not challenged, and upholds Ext.R4(d) as well-founded given the 26-year gap since death. The petition is ultimately dismissed.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that compassionate appointment is aimed at alleviating the financial distress of the family of a deceased employee. The initial rejection (Ext.P2) lacked reasons and was based on an impractical five-year/within-five-years window, even though the rule allowed the child to apply after attaining majority. After decades, Ext.P9 was filed, arguing for consideration under revised schemes; the petition contends that delay should not erase the family’s need and that the authorities should exercise discretion with empathy. It is argued that the previous orders (Ext.P2 and Ext.P5) should be reconsidered in light of the changed circumstances and the evolving compassionate-appointment regime.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that Ext.P9 was filed long after the death and that the relief must be considered only under the scheme in force at the time of death. They rely on rulings that delay undermines the scheme’s objective and contend that the belated filing cannot be entertained. They maintain that Ext.R4(d) is well-founded, given the 26-year gap since death, and emphasize that the earlier rejection orders (Ext.P2, Ext.P5) were not challenged, making interference unwarranted.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Ashish Awasthi	2021 SCC OnLine SC 1084	Mentioned Only	Cited by the respondents to support considering the claim under the scheme prevailing at the time of death; the judgment is referenced but not applied as a controlling authority in granting relief.
Steel Authority of India Ltd v. Gouri Devi	2021 SCC OnLine SC 1080	Mentioned Only	Cited to argue that delay in pursuing the claim undermines the scheme’s objective; not adopted as a binding basis for relief in the present case.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 21ST POUSHA, 1943** **WP(C) NO. 26892 OF 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** MIDHUN KUMAR S.S. AGED 33 YEARS S/O. LATE SREEDHARAN NAIR. R, SARALAYAM EDAVILAKATHU MELE PUTHEN VEEDU, PERUMULOOR, PLAVILA, OORUTTAMBALAM P.O, KARAKKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 507 BY ADV R.B.RAJESH ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, CABINET SECRETARIAT, RAISINA HILLS, NEW DELHI-110 001 2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, HEAD QUARTERS, 13 C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-PIN10003. 3 THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL, CISF HEAD QUARTERS, 13 C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN-10003. 4 THE COMMANDANT, CISF UNIT, V.S.S.C. THUMPA, THUMPA. P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-605 022 BY ADVS. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA SRI.N.S.DAYA SINDHU SHREE HARI ASGI ADV.S.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 **W.P.(C).No.26892 of 2019** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner's father Sreedharan Nair died on 13.06.1992, while serving as 'Constable' in the Central Industrial Security Force. Sreedharan Nair is survived by his wife and two sons. As both children were minors when Sreedharan Nair died, his widow, the petitioner's mother, submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment on 11.08.1992. The application was rejected under Ext.P2 dated 18.02.1993, without assigning any reason. The hapless widow waited patiently till the petitioner, the elder son, attained majority. Immediately thereupon, Ext.P3 application was filed, seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner. The said request was turned down by Ext.P5 stating that, even though as per the extant rules, the minor dependent member can apply for compassionate appointment on attaining the age of 18 years, that should be within five years of the death of the employee. Undeterred, the petitioner filed yet another application which was also rejected, this time stating that the death had occurred more 3 **W.P.(C).No.26892 of 2019** than 12 years back and the request for compassionate appointment cannot be considered at a belated stage. Later the petitioner got information that the time limit for considering application for compassionate appointment was withdrawn under Ext.P11. Thereupon, in a final attempt, Ext.P9 application was filed. The respondents having failed to consider the application, this writ petition is filed to direct appointment of the petitioner under the dying-in-harness scheme or in the alternative, to direct consideration of Ext.P9, based on the revised scheme. 2. Heard Adv. R.B.Rajesh learned counsel for the petitioner and Adv. N.S Daya Sindhu Sreehari learned C.G.C appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the very purpose of compassionate appointment scheme is being defeated by the repeated rejection of the application filed by the widow of the deceased initially, seek and later, by the son, on attaining majority. It is contented that absolutely no reason is stated in Ext.P2 and the first application filed by the petitioner was rejected for the 4 **W.P.(C).No.26892 of 2019** absurd reason that the minor should have attained majority within five years of the employee's death. In any event, Ext.P9 application filed after the time stipulation was lifted ought to have been considered favourably. It is submitted that the family of the deceased is continuing in penury even now. 4. Learned CGC submitted that, pending the writ petition, Ext.P9 was considered by the authority and rejected under Ext.R4 (d). it is contended that the challenge against Exts.P2 and P5 is highly belated. Ext.P9 is filed only on 11.09.2018, whereas the petitioner attained the majority on 24.5.2004. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Ashish Awasthi [2021 SCC OnLine SC 1084], to contend that application for compassionate appointment has to be considered in accordance with the scheme prevailing at the time of death of the employee. Reference is made to the decision in Steel Authority of India Ltd v. Gouri Devi [2021 SCC OnLine SC 1080], to argue that, delay in pursuing the claim for compassionate appointment will result in the very 5 **W.P.(C).No.26892 of 2019** objective of the scheme, which is to provide immediate amelioration to the family, getting extinguished. I find substantial force in the contention that the respondent had committed gross illegality by rejecting the application made by the widow of the deceased, immediately after the death. The reasons for rejection of the application is not discernible from Ext.P2. Even though the learned CGC contended that Ext.P2 is only a communication intimating the rejection and a separate order stating the reasons would have been passed by the Head Quarters, no such order is seen communicated to the applicant. The purpose of the compassionate appointment scheme is to lend financial help to the family of the deceased to tide over the crisis faced due to the sudden death of an earning member. Being so, the approach by the authorities should also be moulded in compassion and empathy, which unfortunately is lacking. But that there is no reason to interfere with Ext.P2, issued way back on 18.02.1993 and Ext.P5, on 13.12.2004, particularly when those orders are not challenged. As far as Ext.R4(d) order rejecting Ext.P9 application is concerned, I find the 6 ## **W.P.(C).No.26892 of 2019** reason therein to be well founded, since the application was filed, 26 years after the death of petitioner's father. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** rpk 7 **W.P.(C).No.26892 of 2019** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26892/2019** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF LATE SREEDHARAN NAIR. - EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 18.02.1993, ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 30.06.2004, SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.11.2004, BY THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT. - EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 13.12.20O4, ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 30.05.2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 06.06.2005 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 11.09.2018. - EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA OF APPLICATION FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15.10.2018. - EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH MEMBER DATED 19.10.2018. - EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO. F. NO. 14014/3/2011-ESTT. (D) DATED 26.07.2012. - EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM F.NO. 14014/02/2012-ESTT (D) DATED 8 ## **W.P.(C).No.26892 of 2019** 16.01.2013. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R4(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE LETTER NO. (6304) DATED 10.11.2018. EXHIBIT R4(B) A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.(8005) DATED 19.07.2019. EXHIBIT R4(C) A TRUE COPY DOPT ORDER NO.14014/19/2002/ESTT(D) DATED 5TH MAY,2003. EXHIBIT R4(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE LETTER NO. (5092) DATED 18.10.2019.