Challenge is against Ext.P6 order issued by the 2nd respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment under compassionate employment scheme. The petitioner's father Sri. C.Rajan was working as Overseer in the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB). He was permitted to retire from service on invalid ground with effect from 28.8.2003, based on a certificate issued by the State Medical Board to the effect that he was completely and permanently incapacitated from continuing in service due to post Post Traumatic Dementia. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application for employment on compassionate grounds, based on Ext.P2 regulations. The said application was submitted on 7.4.2004. But Ext.P2 regulation was modified through Ext.P4 order of the KSEB, dt. 27.9.2002, confining benefits of the compassionate employment only to dependents of employees who have availed invalid pension out of 100% permanent disability arising out of accident in the course of employment under the Board. In Ext.P5 order of the Board it was clarified that applications for compassionate appointment with respect to dependents of employees who retired on invalid pension, submitted prior to 27.9.2002 will be decided on merits on a case to case study basis. But the application submitted by the petitioner was rejected through Ext.P6 based on Ext.P4, pointing out that the benefit is confined only to those persons availing invalid pension due to accident during the course of duty resulting in 100% permanent disability. 2. One of the main contention raised by the petitioner is that Ext.P2 regulation cannot be modified by virtue of an administrative decision taken by the Board. But on a perusal of Ext.P2 it is evident that the regulations are framed by the Board in exercise of power conferred under the relevant provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948. It is evident that Ext.P4 is also a decision taken by the Board in its meeting held on 27.9.2002. Hence the contention does not deserve merit.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that the question stands decided through Ext.R1(a) judgment of this court, rendered in WP(C).28461/2007 (judgment dt. 3.12.2007). It is held that since the decision seems to have been taken by the Board which is the authority that had framed the regulations, it cannot be said that such decision is invalid. Admittedly the application for compassionate employment was submitted by the petitioner subsequent to Ext.P4 decision which was taken on 27.9.2002. Hence this court is of the opinion that the application can be considered only in the light of the amendment in the regulations brought by virtue of Ext.P4 .
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner had pointed out that, in Ext.P7 the Board has taken a decision to request for approval of employment of a dependent of an invalid pensioner who suffered disability not due to any accident. He claimed that the petitioner is entitled to a similar treatment, considering the position that the father of the petitioner who was the employee had suffered total disability due to mental incapacity. On a perusal of Ext.P7 it is evident that the case relates to an application submitted by the dependent of an employee who went invalid not due to any accident, but incapacitated due to coma stage because of brain damage suffered. The applicant in the said case submitted a petition seeking review of the decision taken by the Board rejecting his claim. Considering the special circumstances the Board in its meeting took a decision to review its earlier decision as a special case and to recommend the matter to the Government for favourable orders. But in the case at hand, despite rejection of the application as early as in the year 2008 the petitioner has not approached the Board seeking any review based on Ext.P7. It remain settled through various decisions of the hon'ble apex court that the compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. But it is only a concession provided to benefit the family members of a person who dies in harness or became invalid while in service. It is mainly intended to facilitate the family to tide over an unforeseen situation which will put them into a sudden financial crisis of losing their livelihood. In the case at hand, the petitioner applied for compassionate employment as early as in the year 2004. By lapse of a period of 10 years, neither the petitioner nor his family can be considered as dependent upon the incapacitated employee for their livelihood. Since the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for compassionate employment under the scheme which was prevailing as on the date of application, this court is not inclined to permit him to seek a review of Ext.P6 decision, at this belated stage, even based on a special case considered by the respondent Board in Ext.P7.
Under the above mentioned circumstances the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE p mn/