High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2007-06-29Dismissed

P. Balachandran and A. Santha v. Air Port Director, Air Port Authority of India, Thiruvananthapuram Airport and Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation & Tourism, New Delhi

Case / Petition Number:OP.No. 32371/2000 (D)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
Judgment Date: 2007-06-29
Court Decision / Holding: The original petition fails and is hence dismissed. However, the court noted that if terminal benefits are due, the first petitioner may submit a representation before the competent authority, and appropriate action will be taken in accordance with law to disburse eligible amounts without delay.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P. Balachandran
A. Santha

Respondents

Air Port Director, Air Port Authority of India, National Airports Division, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi
Air Port Director, Thiruvananthapuram Airport, Thiruvananthapuram
The Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation & Tourism, New Delhi

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P.V. Mohanan
• V. Santharam

Counsels for Respondents

• K.L. Narasimhan

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners are the eldest son and the widow of deceased Sri S. Parameswaran, who served as a caretaker at Thiruvananthapuram Airport. Following his death, terminal benefits and family pension were sanctioned, and other dues were paid, including DCRG, CGEGIS, savings, and CPF. Pursuant to the death, the first petitioner sought appointment under the Employment Assistance Scheme for dependents; Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 directed status updates and documentation. The respondents rejected the claim in Ext.P8 on the ground that the second petitioner’s mother was employed and in receipt of family pension and other terminal benefits, rendering the family ineligible. The petitioners argued that the mother’s net salary of Rs.2,188 (as per Ext.P7) did not reflect the full financial picture and that delay in filing was due to respondents’ inaction. The respondents contended that compassionate employment is only for families in dire financial constraint, points supported by decisions of the Supreme Court in State of J&K and others v. Sajad Ahmed Mir and M.T. Latheesh v. Union Bank of India. The court ultimately dismissed the petition, noting the mother’s ongoing employment and benefits, and closed with a direction that any due terminal benefits, if any, be disbursed after proper representation and decision by the competent authority.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Compassionate appointment is not a vested right
Right, if any, is not a vested right in appointment
Notion that financial condition of the family governs eligibility for compassionate appointments

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants argued that the mother’s employment and the receipt of family pension and terminal benefits do not automatically bar the petitioners from employment under the Employment Assistance Scheme, especially since the mother’s net salary appears modest (Rs. 2,188) and may not fully reflect the family’s financial state. They contended that delays in filing were due to respondents’ inaction and that the family’s long-standing financial needs justify compassionate consideration; the application was from 1991, and respondents had not acted in a timely manner. They urged the Court to recognize the right to consideration under the scheme rather than a blanket denial, and that terminal benefits yet to be determined should be promptly disbursed to avoid prejudice.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents argued that compassionate appointments are available only where the family is in dire financial constraint and not where the breadwinner’s family is able to sustain itself with existing salaries and pensions. They relied on case law including State of J&K v. Sajad Ahmed Mir and M.T. Latheesh v. Union Bank of India to show that once the family’s financial condition survives for a substantial period after death, appointment on compassionate grounds is unwarranted. They maintained the mother’s salary and benefits discharge the dependency needs, and that the claim, filed decades after the death, cannot be entertained as a matter of right.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of J&K and others v. Sajad Ahmed Mir	(2006) 5 SCC 766	Positive	The court relied on the principle from this case to hold that after the breadwinner’s death, if the family continues to sustain itself without penury, compassionate appointment is not warranted.
Union Bank of India and others v. M.T. Latheesh	(2006) 7 SCC 350	Positive	The judgment cites this case to reinforce that financial condition of the family post-death governs eligibility for compassionate appointment.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against P. Balachandran and A. Santha v. Air Port Director, Air Port Authority of India, Thiruvananthapuram Airport and Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation & Tourism, New Delhi and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR** **FRIDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2007 / 8TH ASHADHA 1929** ## **OP.No. 32371 of 2000(D)** - **-----------------------------** **PETITIONERS:** ## **----------------** **1. P.BALACHANDRAN, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRI.S.PARAMESWARAN, 'SHOBHA BHAVAN', PARAPOTTA, KUNNAPUZHA P.O., TRIVANDRUM- 32.** **2. A.SANTHA, W/O.LATE S.PARAMESWARAN 'SHOBHA BHAVAN' PARAPOTTA, ARAMADA P.O., KUNNAPUZHA, TRIVANDRUM 32.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.V.MOHANAN SRI.V.SANTHARAM** **RESPONDENTS:** - **------------------** **1. AIR PORT DIRECTOR, AIR PORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NATIONAL AIR PORTS DIVISION, SAFADAR JUNG. AIR PORT, NEW DELHI.** **2. AIR PORT DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AIR PORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION & TOURISM NEW DELHI.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN** **THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **ORDER ON CMP. NO.55271/2000 IN OP. NO.32371/2000** ## **CLOSED** ## **29.06.2007 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 6.11.90.** **EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.NAA./IV/E-19/2735 DT. 7.8.91. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AAI/NAD/TV/E.19/7363 DT. 16.3.99 . EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT. 22.3.99. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE PROFORMA APPLICATION.** ## **EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT. 21.3.99.** **EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE OF THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER DT. 22.3.99.** **EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.AAI(AD)/TV/E.19/1609 DT. 20.6.2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P9:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP. NO.7317/2000 DT. 4.7.2000.** **/TRUE COPY/** ## **tss** ## **T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O.P.No. 32371 of 2000 (D) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 29[th] day of June, 2007 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioners are the eldest son and the widow, respectively, of deceased Sri S.Parameswaran. It is submitted that the second petitioner died pending the original petition on 16/07/2005. The deceased Sri S.Parameswaran was working as a caretaker at Thiruvananthapuram Airport. Apart from the first petitioner, he had another son, Sri P.Ramachandran, who was a student at the time of filing of the original petition. The first petitioner is having the qualification of B.Com, Typing (Lower) and Diploma in Windows based office automation. Pursuant to the death of the father, family pension of Rs.575/- was sanctioned which has been revised thereafter. Apart from the terminal benefits by way of DCRG (29,500/-) and another amount of Rs.30,000/- towards CGEGIS, Rs.2,370/- as saving fund and Rs.17026/- towards CPF also have been paid, to the family of the deceased. 2. Being a dependent of the deceased, the first petitioner sought for appointment under the relevant scheme and by Ext.P2 O.P.No.32371/2000(D) -: 2 :- the first petitioner was informed that the application has not been recommended by the Employment Assistance Committee. It appears that the petitioners pursued the matter again and by Ext.P3, they were directed to file an affidavit showing the present status of their family and to submit a proforma with necessary documents. The same was complied with by the petitioners. Exts.P5 and P6 represents the proforma and other details. Ext.P7 is the salary certificate of the second petitioner dated 22/03/1999 and the monthly salary was Rs.6051/-. Less deductions she was receiving a net salary of Rs.2,188/-. Ultimately, by Ext.P8, it was informed to the first petitioner that since the mother is employed and is in receipt of family pension and other terminal benefits, the first petitioner is not eligible for the employment assistance under the Employment Assistance Scheme. The petitioners assail the above order in this original petition. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein it has been pointed out that the first petitioner is not eligible for the employment assistance in view of the fact that the O.P.No.32371/2000(D) -: 3 :- second petitioner was employed and is in receipt of family pension and other terminal benefits. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the mother of the first petitioner was employed, she was getting only a net salary of Rs.2,188/-, as seen from Ext.P7, and the receipt of the family pension and other terminal benefits cannot defeat the rights of the first petitioner to get employment under the scheme. It is further pointed out that the application was filed in 1991 and the delay, if any, occurred, is because of the inaction on the part of the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that employment assistance, if any, can be given only if the family is in dire constraints and cannot pull on because of the loss of income consequent on the death of the breadwinner. Herein, the mother was already employed and was getting salary. Apart from that, family pension was also sanctioned along with the terminal benefits. The learned counsel also relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court reported in **State of J&K and others vs.Sajad Ahmed Mir** [( **2006) 5 SCC 766]** and **Union Bank of India and others vs.** O.P.No.32371/2000(D) -: 4 :- **M.T.Latheesh** [( **2006) 7 SCC 350]** . It was also pointed out that now 17 years have elapsed after the death of the father and, therefore, appointment cannot be claimed at this distance of time. 5. Going by the admitted facts, the mother of the petitioner (the deceased second petitioner) was employed at the time of the death of her husband. Even though Ext.P7 shows that the net salary was Rs.2,188/-, in the year 1999, she was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.6,051/- at that time. The deductions towards EPF, LIC etc. are also to be noticed while computing net salary. Apart from that when the mother is employed and she was getting salary along with the family pension and other benefits consequent on the death of the breadwinner, it is not a case where the family could not pull on because of the death of the late husband of the second petitioner. Major criterion in such claims, is the financial condition of the family and unless the financial condition is entirely penury such appointments cannot be made. Going by the principles stated in (2006) 5 SCC 766, it can be seen that once it is proved that inspite of the death of the breadwinner the family survived and substantial period is O.P.No.32371/2000(D) -: 5 :- over, there is no need to make appointment on compassionate grounds. Herein, Ext.P2 is dated 07/08/1991 and further proceedings were initiated by petitioners only in the year 1999. The right, if any, is not a vested right also. For all these reasons, the rejection of the claim by Ext.P8 cannot be faulted. The original petition fails and is hence dismissed. However, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice that as far as the terminal benefits of the deceased are concerned, further amounts are due and the eligible amounts have not been determined and disbursed so far. If any, further amounts are due, the first petitioner can file appropriate representation before the competent authority and on receipt of the same, a decision will be taken on its merits, in accordance with law, and eligible benefits, if any, will be disbursed without any further delay. ## **T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge** ms O.P.No.32371/2000(D) -: 6 :- ## **T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O.P.No. 32371 of 2000 (D) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ **J U D G M E N T** 29[th] June, 2007