Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, which is a Public Sector Undertaking. Submissions are made touching the entire aspect of the matter.
2. The petitioner's father died while serving the 3rd respondent. She filed an application for compassionate appointment. Since there was delay in making such an application, the petitioner sought condonation of delay. The Government accepted that request. Ultimately, the application for compassionate appointment was rejected on the sole ground that the petitioner was married and was living with her husband. That was communicated to the petitioner as per Ext.P4. She challenged that decision and moved before the learned single Judge.
3. The learned single Judge noted that the application before the Government for compassionate appointment was highly belated.
4. The 3rd respondent is a Public Sector Undertaking, in which the Government of Kerala is the majority shareholder. It is a State Government Company. The State Government exercised its discretion to condone the delay in filing application for compassionate appointment. It did not hold that the ground of delay is a reason to reject the application.
5. Under the afore-noticed facts and circumstances, the judicial review process at the hands of the learned single Judge ought to have been focused primarily on the issue as to whether the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment could have been rejected for the reason that she was married and was living with her husband. We say so because, impugned Ext.P4 does not disclose any other reason.
6. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the submission of the appellant/petitioner commends acceptance and we are of the view that the application of the petitioner deserves to be re-considered. We may also note that, in a dispute of same nature, the Government have themselves concluded that the fact that a son or a daughter is married is not a ground to deny compassionate appointment. However, the dependency and other relevant factors may have to be weighed by the competent authority. To pave way for that, Ext.P4 needs to be quashed.
In the result, the impugned judgment is vacated and Ext.P4 in the writ petition is quashed, paving way for re-consideration of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment. It is directed that the said application shall not be rejected on the ground of delay.
However, the competent authority, among the respondents, will be at liberty to consider all other necessary grounds and ingredients in the course of consideration of that application, in accordance with law; including the government orders that govern the situation. This shall be done within a period of three months from today, without fail.
Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
Sd/- BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
Jvt