R. Sasidharan v. State of Kerala and others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2014/2ND MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 17602 of 2013 (A) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- R.SASIDHARAN NEDUMPARAMPIL HOUSE, POTHAPPALLY, KUMARAPURAM P.O. ALAPPUZHA - 690 548. BY ADV. SRI.P.SIVARAJ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY HOME (SC) DEPARTMENT, STATE SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-690001 2. THE STATE PROJECT OFFICER, SARVA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN (SSA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110001 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (PERS. & COMN), DIRECTORATE GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (CRPF), C.G.O COMPLEX LODHI ROAD, (NEW DELHI)-110001 5. THE D.I.G, SIGNAL RANGE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (CRPF) SALT LAKE, KOLKATA-700001 6. COMMANDANT-I, SIGNAL BN, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (CRPF) J/KALAN, NEW DELHI-110001 R3-R6 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17602 of 2013 (A) ---------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------ - EXHIBIT-P1:TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/07/2010 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE D.I.G (TECHNICAL). - EXHIBIT-P2:TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27/10/2009 ADDRESSED TO THE IST RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT-P3:TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/10/2009 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER DATED 03/12/2009 OF THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT-P5:TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15/10/2012 ADDRESSED TO THE RESPONDENS 1,3 AND 4. - EXHIBIT-P6:TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17/12/2012 IN W.P(C) 30092/2012. - EXHIBIT-P7:TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 04/01/2013 ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT-P8:TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/01/2013 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT-P9:TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01/02/2013 SENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE COUNSEL OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P10:TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT-P11:TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/03/2013 SENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT BY THE COUNSEL OF THE PETITIONER. - EXHIBIT P12:TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SLIP DATED 7.5.1981 ISSUED FROM CRPF BASE/GROUP HOSPITAL. - EXHIBIT P13:TRUE COPY OF CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE ON INVALIDATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 6.6.1981. - EXHIBIT P14:TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 1.2.1982. - EXHIBIT P15:TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION LETTER DATED 12.12.1994 ISSUED FROM ADDITIONAL DIGP SIGNAL GROUP CENTRE. - EXHIBIT P16:TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND APPEAL DATED 25.11.1996 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS. - EXHIBIT P17:TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.12.1996 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (COMMUNICATION), DIRECTORATE GENERAL CRPF TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P18:TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21/23.07.1983 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE DY.DIRECTOR (ADMN) CRPF EXTENDING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM RISK PREMIA FUND ON INVALIDATION. EXHIBIT P19:TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME CERTIFICATE DATED 27.12.2000 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUMARAPURAM. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------ EXT.R3(A):TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING DATED 30.5.2013. ANEXURE A1:TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 28.11.03 OF THE GENERAL EDUCATION (G) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA. ANNEXURE A3:TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION DATED 23.10.2013. //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== W.P.(C). No.17602 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 22[nd] day of January, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner was a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). He was medically invalidated from service on 27.4.1981 pursuant to the finding 'unfit to continue in service'. Long later, he submitted Exts.P2 and P3 representations both dated 27.10.2009 seeking appointment of his daughter in any State Government service. On receipt of the said representations, the first respondent forwarded the same to the third respondent along with Ext.P4 forwarding letter. Alleging non-feasance on the part of the third respondent the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (C).No.30092 of 2012. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P6 judgment, without making any observation as to the merits of the rival contentions, with a direction to the fourth respondent therein/the fourth respondent herein to consider and pass **W.P.(C).17602/13** 2 appropriate orders on Ext.P5, referred as such in the said writ petition within the time stipulated thereunder. Subsequently, as per Ext.P8, the petitioner was informed that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment to his daughter as primary school teacher under the Government of Kerala should not be considered as it did not fall within the prerogative of CRPF. Ext.P8 is dated 17.1.2013. As per Ext.P8, the petitioner was virtually informed of the rejection of his request. However, the petitioner has not chosen to assail the same. According to the petitioner, subsequently, he received Ext.P10 communication from the Commandant of First Signal Batallion, New Delhi. Essentially, the contention of the petitioner is that despite the specific directions of this Court in Ext.P6 judgment, the application submitted by the petitioner for appointment to his daughter was not taken up and considered in accordance with law. 2. Respondents 3 to 6 have filed counter affidavit in this writ petition. They have subsequently filed a statement as well. The **W.P.(C).17602/13** 3 petitioner has filed a reply affidavit and thereafter filed additional affidavit and along with the same produced Annexures A1 to A3. Evidently, the contention of the respondents is that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in this writ petition for various reasons. The learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondents 3 to 6 submitted that pursuant to Ext.P6 judgment, the fourth respondent passed an order bearing No.R-II-2/2010-2013-C(8) dated 30.1.2013. As per the same, the petitioner was again informed that his claim for employment assistance to his daughter as primary teacher in the State Government service does not fall under the prerogative of CRPF and also the Ministry of Home Affairs. The learned Assistant Solicitor General handed over a copy of the said order. A perusal of the same would reveal that copies of the said order were already forwarded to the petitioner as also to the counsel for the petitioner. The learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted that even though the said order has been served on them, the petitioner has not cared to put up any challenge against it. It is evident from the **W.P.(C).17602/13** 4 pleadings in this writ petition that there is absolute absence of any challenge against the said order dated 30.1.2013 passed pursuant to Ext.P6 judgment. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner has not impugned the order whereby his request for granting employment assistance under the compassionate employment scheme to his daughter was rejected by the fourth respondent as per order dated 30.1.2013. As noticed hereinbefore, there is also no challenge against Ext.P8 in this writ petition. Despite such lacuna and lapse on the part of the petitioner I am inclined to consider the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner taking into account the fact that he is a person who served the CRPF and subsequently medically invalidated from service. For considering the said question, certain undisputed and indisputable facts have to be looked into. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was medically invalidated as per Rules on 6.6.1981 while working as a Constable in CRPF. The petitioner submitted Exts.P2 and P3 representations carrying the request for granting employment assistance to his daughter in the State Government service as primary **W.P.(C).17602/13** 5 school teacher under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan scheme only on 27.10.2009 viz., more that 28 years since his invalidation from service. 3. Along with the additional affidavit, the petitioner has produced Annexure A1 communication received from the first respondent. It is dated 28.11.2003. It is obvious that after medical invalidation on 6.6.1981 an application was submitted by the petitioner only on 15.5.2003. As per Annexure A1 dated 28.11.2003, the petitioner was informed that as per the existing scheme of employment assistance, only the dependents of defence personnel and GREF/BSF personnel attached to military duty, killed in action or died due to reasons attributable to military service are eligible for employment assistance in State Government service. It was further stated thereunder that in the said circumstances, the dependent of the petitioner is ineligible for employment assistance under the said scheme. Thus, it is evident that though the request of the petitioner **W.P.(C).17602/13** 6 was rejected by the first respondent as early as on 28.11.2003 vide Annexure A1 order, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge that order. The very fact that the petitioner has produced it along with the additional affidavit would reveal that the petitioner was in receipt of the said order and has been in possession of the said order. In fact, there in not even a whisper about Annexure- A1 in this writ petition. I will revert back to the question of entitlement of the petitioner to the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. It is evident from the pleadings in the writ petition that the petitioner's daughter is now aged 31 years. According to the petitioner, she is a spinster. Certainly, that cannot be a reason for granting an appointment under the compassionate employment scheme. Even as per order dated 30.1.2013 the petitioner was informed that going by the letter from the Government of Kerala no bearing No.66380/SC1/09/Home dated 15.10.2009 there is provision for giving employment assistance under the compassionate employment scheme in state government service to the wards of medically invalidated CRPF personnel and based on the same the case **W.P.(C).17602/13** 7 and claim of the petitioner was closed by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 9.9.2010. Schemes such as employment assistance scheme under dying-in-harness scheme and also for giving employment assistance on invalidation cannot be deemed as a method of appointment. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the fact that such beneficial schemes were introduced with a noble purpose. It is death or invalidation of the bread winner of the family which resulted in an immediate crisis in the family concerned that persuaded to frame such schemes. Evidently, employment assistance in the said circumstances is provided only to enable the family concerned to tide over the immediate crisis. In other words, it is only provided as a succor to the family to tide over the immediate crisis. In such circumstances, the consideration should be whether without providing employment assistance, the family could tide over the immediate crisis. I am of the view that in such circumstances, a Division Bench decision of this Court in **Union of India v. Susamma Chandy [2013** **(4) KLT SN 137 (Case No.148)]** assumes relevance. It was held **W.P.(C).17602/13** 8 therein that compassionate appointment could not be granted after a number of years for the simple reason that the immediate need would have then been extinguished and giving such appointment would, in such circumstances, be against the public policy. It was further held that the very object of providing such appointments is to provide immediate succor to the family to overcome sudden financial crisis and that such employment can only be held as an exception to constitutional provisions contained in Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution. Though the said decision was not rendered in the case of invalidation, taking into account the fact that the case on hand also carries a claim for compassionate appointment I am of the view that the said observations would apply with equal force in the present contextual situation. In this case, as noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner was invalidated as early as on 6.6.1981 and the petitioner has submitted Exts.P2 and P3 applications seeking compassionate employment assistance only on 27.10.2009. True that an earlier application submitted by him on 15.5.2013 was rejected as per **W.P.(C).17602/13** 9 Annexure-AI and subsequent to Ext.P2, he was informed that his claim was rejected as per Ext.P8 and order dated 30.1.2013. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the said orders. Add to it, the daughter of the petitioner is a major and she, even according to the petitioner, is now aged 31 years. On the ground of medical invalidation of the petitioner as early as on 6.6.1981, the petitioner's daughter who is now aged 31 years cannot seek appointment in dyingin-harness scheme as a primary teacher under the State Government. For all these reasons, this writ petition is absolutely bereft of any merit and it is liable to fail. Accordingly, it is dismissed. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** **W.P.(C).17602/13** 10 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** # **W.P.(C).17602/13** 11