Sreekanth A.H. v. The High Court of Kerala, Represented by the Registrar General

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN** **THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/25TH PHALGUNA 1933** **WP(C).No. 25351 of 2010 (R) -------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): -------------** **SREEKANTH A.H., AYERATTIL HOUSE, VARIKKOLI P.O., MATTAKUZHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PIN - 682 304.** **BY ADVS.SRI.S.K.BALACHANDRAN SRI.P.V.JYOTHI (PALAKKAPPILLIL) SRI.T.P.GEORGE SRI.C.K.SIDDIK** **RESPONDENT(S): ------------** **THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, KERALA HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.** **BY ADVS. SRI. KRB.KAIMAL (SR.) SRI. B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **NS** ## **WP(C).No. 25351 of 2010** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :** - **EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT DATED 15.6.2006 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE THEN REGISTRAR.** - **EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.7.2009 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE.** - **EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.07.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 19.10.2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE.** - **EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT SERVICE RULES, 1970.** - **EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE SCHEME FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT FRAMED BY THE GOVT. OF KERALA.** - **EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.06.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE.** - **EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY M.G.UNIVERSITY.** - **IA.NO.13787 OF 2011** **EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE AMMENDED SSLC BOOK BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER.** ## **RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL** **/ TRUE COPY /** **NS** **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. -----------------------W.P(C). NO. 25351 OF 2010 ------------------------** Dated this the 15[th] day of March, 2012 **JUDGMENT** The petitioner's father Sri.P.K.Hariharan died on 16/2/2002 while working as a Selection Grade Assistant in the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner, who is the eldest son of Hariharan, was a minor aged 14 years at that time. According to the petitioner, he had submitted Ext.P1 application dated 15/6/2006 immediately on attaining majority. However, according to him, the then Registrar General returned the same to him advising him to submit an application after completing his Degree course. Accordingly, the petitioner completed his Degree course and thereafter submitted Ext.P2 application dated 2/7/2009. However, as per Ext.P3, Ext.P2 has been rejected. The petitioner's application has been rejected for the reason that as per Clause(v) of Rule 11(1) of the Kerala High Court Service Rules 2007, applications received within a period of three years from the date of death alone would be considered. In the case of a minor son or daughter applications would be received, W.P.(C) No. 25351 /2011 2 within a period of five years provided the deceased was not having a major son or daughter at the time of his death. As per the above provision, since the petitioner's application was out of time, the same was rejected. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the initial application, Ext.P1, submitted by the petitioner was perfectly within the time limit prescribed. However, it was only for the reason that the same was returned by the Registrar General directing the petitioner to apply after completing his Degree course that he waited. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the date of the petitioner's application should be construed as 15/6/2006 which was within the time limit prescribed. It is further contended that at the time of death of the petitioner's father it was the High Court Service Rules 1970 that was in operation. The said Rules did not prescribe any time limit. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the same. Particular reliance is placed on Section 40(2) of the said Rules which provides that promotions, appointments and claims under the said Rules could be W.P.(C) No. 25351 /2011 3 considered under the provisions thereof. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner's application may be considered under the provisions of the said Rules. Reliance is also placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this court in **Bharat Sanchar** **Nigam Ltd. v. Tittin (2011 (4) KLT 409)** wherein it has been held that beneficial schemes are to be implemented in accordance with the norms existing as on the date of the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, seeks orders directing consideration of the petitioner's application. 3. Advocate Sri.B.Unnikrishnan Kaimal appears for the respondent. According to the learned counsel, even on the petitioner's own showing Ext.P1 had not been submitted to the respondent, the same was admittedly taken back by the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent has no occasion to consider the same. The only application considered was Ext.P2. Since Ext.P2 was submitted in 2009, the same had to be considered under the provisions of the Kerala High Court Service Rules 2007. According to the counsel, Ext.P2 is badly out of time and has, therefore, been rightly rejected by Ext.P3. W.P.(C) No. 25351 /2011 4 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent. I have also considered the rival contentions anxiously. Though it is contended that the petitioner had submitted Ext.P1 application within the time prescribed, it is admitted by the petitioner that the same was taken back by him. There is no material or evidence on record to substantiate the contention of the petitioner that Ext.P1 was returned to him by the respondent directing him to submit a fresh application after he completed his Degree course. 5. The only application that was submitted by the petitioner is Ext.P2, dated 2/7/2009. According to the petitioner, the same was submitted by him after he completed his Degree course. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the certificate of the Tahsildar that is appended to Ext.P1 which is dated 15/6/2006. If the petitioner did not have an intention to submit Ext.P1 as contended, there was no reason for him to obtain the said certificate on 15/6/2006. The above fact, when considered together with the fact that the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 application immediately on completion of his Degree course only supports his contention that he had got his W.P.(C) No. 25351 /2011 5 earlier application returned on the advise of the respondent. However, the above facts are not sufficient to justify a presumption that Ext.P1 though submitted, was taken back by the petitioner on the advise of the respondent. Therefore, nothing turns on the said circumstances. 6. Since Ext.P2 application is dated 2/7/2009, the same had to be considered in the light of the provisions contained in the Kerala High Court Service Rules 2007. It is only while considering Ext.P2 that the entitlement of the petitioner to claim compassionate appointment is considered. Therefore, such consideration has to be under the provisions of the Rules applicable at the time. Hence, rejection of the petitioner's application by Ext.P3 was justified. Since the petitioner's claim had not arisen under the earlier Rules, Section 40(2) of the earlier Rules also have no application to the claim of the petitioner. The dictum in the judgment of this court in **Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Tittin(cited supra)** has no application to the facts of the present case. The dictum only lays down that the claim for compassionate appointment made by a person cannot be denied by a subsequent change of the norms. W.P.(C) No. 25351 /2011 6 Therefore, the norms existing as on the date of the application govern the consideration thereof. In the present case, as already found, the petitioner's application has been considered in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala High Court Service Rules 2007 that was in force as on the date on which the petitioner submitted his application i.e.2/7/2009. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order Ext.P1. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. **Sd/-** **K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE** ## **/True copy/** **P.S.to Judge** dpk W.P.(C) No. 25351 /2011 7