High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-11-05Petition allowed

Sujith S. Pillai v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.21632 OF 2014(D)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Shaji P. Chaly
Judgment Date: 2019-11-05
Court Decision / Holding: There will be a direction to the State Government to take further consequential action pertaining to Ext.P4 order, at the earliest and at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of this judgment, after providing notice of hearing to all concerned parties including the 4th respondent, and taking into account the Division Bench Judgment referred to above and other statutory or any other notifications in this regard.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SUJITH.S AGED 29 YEARS S/O.LATE SUDHAKARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT V.S.BHAVANAM, CHOLA, PANMANA, PUTHENCHANDHA P.O., KOLLAM-691587.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by its Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
Director of Collegiate Education Office of the Director of Collegiate Education, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
The Manager NSS Corporate Educational Agency, Head Office, Perunna, Changanacherry

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.SAJITH KUMAR V.
• Sri.S.SUNIL KUMAR (PALAKKAD)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.P.GOPAL
• Sri.JESTIN MATHEW, Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition concerns the private aided colleges in Kerala and the purported need to implement a compassionate appointment scheme for the dependents of employees who died in harness. The petitioner, Sujith S., whose father was a mechanic at an NSS college, seeks directions to implement Ext.P4 dated 7.10.2013, which directed the Directorate of Collegiate Education to draft a proposal for extending a compassionate appointment scheme to private aided colleges. The petition asserts that the compassionate scheme exists where salaries are paid from the state exchequer and argues the scheme should apply to private aided colleges as a social welfare obligation imposed on managements via direct payment agreements. The matter engages a clash between welfare policies for employees’ families and the autonomy of private institutions, with the petition invoking the broader social responsibility of private colleges. The Fourth Respondent and counsel rely on a Division Bench decision in Nair Service Society v. State of Kerala and Others, and contend that the government must frame guidelines consistent with that judgment. The learned Judge analyzes Ext.P4, the Division Bench ruling, and concludes that the state may proceed to frame guidelines, while allowing objections by the private managements. The court ultimately allows the petition, directing the State Government to take further action based on Ext.P4 within six months, after notice to all stakeholders.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that the compassionate appointment scheme, currently enforced in institutions where salary is paid from the State exchequer, should extend to private aided colleges. He emphasizes Ext.P4 (7.10.2013), which directed the Directorate of Collegiate Education to draft a proposal for implementing the compassionate appointment scheme in private aided colleges, and argues the scheme should apply to all aided higher secondary schools as well as colleges. The petitioner asserts the direct payment arrangements between managements and employees reflect a social welfare obligation to extend compassionate appointments to the dependents of staff who died in harness. He contends that delaying or excluding private aided colleges undermines equal treatment and social responsibility. He urges quick framing and implementation of guidelines based on Ext.P4, with due notice to all affected parties, including the 4th respondent. He seeks a judicially enforceable framework that would ensure timely relief for families while recognizing the governance of private institutions.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents cite the Division Bench judgment in Nair Service Society v. State of Kerala and Others (1992) as authority, asserting that Ext.P4 should be considered within an established framework and that any guidelines must respect the autonomy of private managements. They argue that extending public employee welfare schemes to private aided colleges requires legislative or statutory action, or at least clear statutory guidelines, to avoid undermining private institutions’ governance and financial viability. The 4th respondent contends that while guidelines may be issued, the ultimate responsibility lies in balancing public welfare with private management rights, and that any broad extension should be approached with caution to prevent arbitrariness or overreach. The counsel for the respondents maintains that the Division Bench decision left room for Government action, but without negating the rights or concerns of private colleges and their governing bodies.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Nair Service Society v. State of Kerala and Others	1992 (2) KLT 134	Positive	The Division Bench decision is invoked to support the Government’s power to frame guidelines for extending welfare schemes to private unaided institutions, indicating the present judgment relies on that precedent.

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 Sujith S. Pillai v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**WP(C).No.21632 OF 2014(D)** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1941** **WP(C).No.21632 OF 2014(D)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SUJITH.S AGED 29 YEARS S/O.LATE SUDHAKARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT V.S.BHAVANAM, CHOLA, PANMANA, PUTHENCHANDHA P.O., KOLLAM-691587.** **BY ADVS. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SRI.S.SUNIL KUMAR (PALAKKAD)** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **3 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **4 THE MANAGER N.S.S. CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, HEAD OFFICE, PERUNNAI, CHANGANACHERRY. R1, R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAL R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.MURALEEDHARAN R1 TO R3 - SRI.JESTIN MATHEW, GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **2** ## **WP(C).No.21632 OF 2014(D)** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 0411-2019, THE COURT ON 05-11-2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.21632 OF 2014(D)** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed by the petitioner basically seeking directions to the State Government to implement the proceedings pertaining to Ext.P4 dated 7.10.2013, where by the Government directed the Directorate of Collegiate Education to submit a draft proposal for implementing compassionate appointment scheme, in the private aided colleges, and for other consequential reliefs:The brief material facts for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows: Petitioner is the son of a Mechanic who died in harness while working under NSS college managed by the 4[th] respondent, and is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent in implementing the scheme for compassionate appointment, ordered to be enforced in aided colleges. According to the petitioner, the scheme of compassionate appointment is in force in all institutions where salary is being paid from the state exchequer. It is also pointed out that, the scheme of compassionate appointment is applicable to all Aided Higher Secondary Schools and therefore, the aided **WP(C).No.21632 OF 2014(D)** **4** colleges cannot claim any immunity from coming out of the social responsibility for providing employment to the dependents of those who died in harness. It is also submitted that the direct payment agreement in aided institutions makes it obligatory on the part of aided management to the extent of social welfare measures intended for their own employees. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. However, learned Counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent has invited my attention to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in **Nair Service Society vs. State of Kerala and Others [1992 (2) KLT 134]** in Writ Appeal No. 248/2012 and other connected writ petitions dated 1.10.2014. According to the learned Counsel for the 4[th] respondent, the issue with respect to Ext.P4 sought to be implemented by the petitioner herein was taken into account, **WP(C).No.21632 OF 2014(D)** **5** and the said judgment has rendered. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to Paragraph 8 of the judgment wherein the power of the State Government for making any such provisions in the Acts and the First Statutes of the Universities were taken into account by the Division Bench of this Court, and the issue so raised by the petitioner was rejected. 4. Any how, I am of the opinion that, while analysing the case put forth by the 4[th] respondent, it was held that the 4[th] respondent is at liberty to object if any guidelines are fixed by the Government on the basis of Ext.P4 against the 4[th] respondent or any other private management. Paragraph 18, 20 and 21 are relevant to the context, which read thus. “19. Yet another aspect of the matter is that in Kerala, there are other several Corporate Educational Agencies, including that of minority and non-minority communities. Nobody other than the petitioner herein felt threatened by Ext.P2 order. Suffice it to say that we are not satisfied that as a result of Ext.P2 any injustice has been caused to the petitioner entitling them to seek the reliefs sought for. However, we clarify that as and when the guidelines are issued by the Government, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any of the provisions of the guidelines it would be open to the petitioner to **WP(C).No.21632 OF 2014(D)** **6** seek redressal of their grievances in accordance with law. ****** 20. Coming to W.A.No.248/12, that arises from the judgment in W.P.(C)No.30738/04. The first respondent's father was a lecturer in the department of Chemistry in the N.S.S. College, Nilamel. He died on 15.4.1982 leaving behind a widow and two minor children, among who, the first respondent was only 8 years old when the death took place. On account of the financial constraints, the first respondent had to discontinue her studies after completing predegree course. She attained majority on 5.10.1991 and submitted Ext.P5 application on 9.10.1995 seeking employment on compassionate grounds. Naturally, that was not responded. On 24.5.1999, the Government issued Ext.P3 order introducing a scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, in Clause 9, it was clarified that the scheme is not applicable to the employees of private colleges. Inspite of it, she made Ext.P4 application on 9.12.2000, that also was not responded. In the aforesaid circumstances, she filed the writ petition on 18.10.2004 and by then, she had attained 33 years of age. 21. By the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge held Clause 9 of Ext.P3 to be illegal and also proceeded to hold that as a result, the scheme would be applicable to private colleges as well. On that basis, learned Single Judge directed consideration of the application made by the first respondent for appointent in terms of Ext.P3 Government Order. It is this judgment which is under challenge by the N.S.S.” 5. Other contentions are also raised by the learned **WP(C).No.21632 OF 2014(D)** **7** Counsel for the 4[th] respondent taking cue from the Division Bench judgment quoted above. 6. After having evaluated the situation, in my considered opinion the subject issue with respect to further action on the basis of Ext.P4 Government Order dated 7.10.2013, is to be carried ahead in respect of the implementation of the scheme with regard to the dying in harness. On a reading of the Division Bench Judgment, it is quite clear and evident that liberty was left open to the Government by this Court. However, it is also clear from the said judgment that if any guidelines are fixed against the 4[th] respondent, the 4[th] respondent is at liberty to object the same. Therefore, I do not think at present there is any inhibition standing in the way of the State Government for proceeding to frame any guidelines, on the basis of Ext.P4 dated 7.10.2013. 7. In that view of the matter the relief sought for in the writ petition will stand allowed. There will be a direction to the State Government to take further consequential action pertaining to Ext.P4 order, at the earliest and at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, **WP(C).No.21632 OF 2014(D)** **8** after providing notice of hearing to all concerned parties including the 4[th] respondent herein, and taking into account the Division Bench Judgment referred to above and other statutory or any other notifications in this regard. ## **Sd/** ## **SHAJI P.CHALY** **JUDGE** **Jm/** **WP(C).No.21632 OF 2014(D)** **9** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 7/7/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2 P2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 29/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KARUNAGAPALLY.** **EXHIBIT P3 P3: COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TRIVANDRUM CORPORATION.** **EXHIBIT P4 P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/10/2013 ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P5 P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 7/3/2014 BY THE APPLICANT.** **EXHIBIT P6 P6: COPY OF THE INFORMATION RELEASED AS PER LETTER DATED 14/3/2014 ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**