Whether the dependent family member of an employee, who died before assigning with any duty and before performing any duty pursuant to his appointment and reporting for joining duty, is entitled to claim compassionate appointment, is the question involved in this case. 2. Brief facts are that, Sri. V.S.Chandran Pillai, father of the petitioner, was earlier working as an empanelled Driver on a provisional basis in the 1st respondent Corporation, from the year 1992 onwards. He was advised for regular appointment in the cadre of Reserve Driver by the Public Service Commission, through Ext. P2 proceedings, dt. 22.6.2000. The 1st respondent Corporation had issued Ext.P4 Memo appointing him as Reserve Driver, subject to conditions incorporated thereunder. In Ext.P4 it is mentioned that if the candidate accepts the appointment based on the conditions stipulated, he should report for duty before the 2nd respondent on 28.7.2000 or within 45 days of the receipt of the said order, with the original records. Specific claim of the petitioner is that the deceased Sri. Chandran Pillai had reported for joining duty before the 2nd respondent on the forenoon of 29.7.2000 with all the requisite documents, and along with a Medical Certificate. The 2nd respondent had admitted him to duty after verification of the documents, but advised him to wait for a posting order. It is stated that Sri. Chandran Pillai was not issued with any posting order inspite of his waiting for the day on which he had reported for joining duty and on the subsequent day. According to the petitioner, Sri. Chandran Pillai developed severe illness on the next day, and he got admitted at Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. He died on 9.8.2000 during the course of treatment. Ext.P5 certificate issued by the 2nd respondent is produced to show that Sri. Chandran Pillai was admitted in the unit as Reserve Drive on 29.7.2000, but he has not performed any duty in that unit.
3. The petitioner was a minor at the time of death of his father. On attaining majority he approached the authorities in the 1st respondent Corporation seeking employment under the 'compassionate employment scheme'. Application in the prescribed format was submitted as per Ext.P7. But the 1st respondent rejected the claim through Ext. P8 stating that the deceased, eventhough reported for joining duty on 29.7.2000, had returned without joining duty due to his serious illness. It is mentioned that the deceased Sri. Chandran Pillai cannot be considered as a regular employee of the Corporation. Therefore the request of the petitioner cannot be considered, since he is not dependent of a deceased regular employee. Ext.P8 is challenged in this writ petition .
4. Contention of the petitioner is mainly based on Rule 6(e) of Part I of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (KS and SSR) which prescribes that a person is said to be 'on duty' as a member of the service when he is waiting for posting orders after reporting for duty. It is contended that, Ext.P9 'compassionate employment scheme' formulated by the State Government was adopted by the 1st respondent Corporation and the petitioner is entitled for getting employment in terms of the scheme. It is further contended that the family was dependent on the income derived out of the employment of the deceased and that the petitioner as well as other legal heirs have only limited income or employment.
5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is contended that, consequent to receipt of Ext.P4 order of appointment Sri. V.S.Chandran Pillai had reported before the 2nd respondent on 29.7.2000. But the records produced by him were not scrutinised because he was visibly found to be too weak and cannot even sit upright without a helping hand, let alone thinking of driving a heavy vehicle. More over it was noticed that the Medical Certificate produced was dated 10.7.2000, whereas the appointment order was issued on 19.7.2000. Therefore it appeared to be invalid and was not accepted. According to the respondents, the deceased was not issued with any posting order because his physical condition at that time was so deteriorated and he could not drive any vehicle. Contention is that, regular service of a candidate advised for appointment in a permanent vacancy would begin only from the date of performing first duty or from the date of training in the category for which he is selected. Hence the contention that the deceased was admitted to duty, is denied. The respondents have also relied on Ext.R1(a) letter issued by the wife of the deceased, who is the mother of the petitioner. It would indicate that, the deceased eventhough joined service could not perform duty because of his illness related to functioning of his kidney. According to the respondents, Ext.P5 certificate issued by the 2nd respondent is only meant to testify that the deceased had reported for duty on 29.7.2000. But it does not indicate that he had performed any duty. There is no meaning in saying that a person is admitted to the unit without performing any duty. It is pointed out that the certificate does not mention anything about the direction given to the deceased to wait for posting orders, as alleged. Hence the denial of compassionate appointment was legal and justified, is the contention.
6. Main area of dispute between the parties is as to whether the deceased father of the petitioner had joined duty in the service of the 1st respondent Corporation. The petitioner relies on Ext.P5 certificate issued by the 2nd respondent to the effect that he was admitted in the unit as Reserve Driver on 29.7.2000. According to learned counsel for the petitioner there is no dispute that the petitioner had reported for joining duty on the said date. Going by Ext.P5 he was admitted in the service on that day itself. However, the respondents have disputed the fact that he was permitted to join duty. Contention is that the deceased was in such a deteriorated physical condition that he could not perform any duty. Hence he was not assigned with any duty on the said day or thereafter, is the contention. Relying on Rule 6(e) of Part I of KS and SSR, contention was raised to the effect that the petitioner can be presumed as “on duty”, since he had reported for joining duty and was waiting for posting orders.
7. But, before adjudicating the above said issue, a more crucial aspect which need to be considered is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for employment under the compassionate employment scheme, as a dependent of the deceased employee of the 1st respondent Corporation. There is no dispute that the 1st respondent Corporation had adopted Ext.P9 scheme. The scheme is intended to provide compassionate employment for dependents of Government servants dying in harness. The scheme indicate that it will also apply to a Government servant missing while in service, and also with respect to Government servants who have availed invalid pension before their normal date of superannuation. Eligibility of the dependents for the compassionate appointment is subject to conditions incorporated in the scheme, with respect to the family income. Who can be considered as dependent is also enumerated under the scheme. Clause 15 of the scheme deals with minimum service. It reads as follows:-
“There Shall be no minimum service restriction. Dependants of those Government servants who are regularly appointed and employed in Government service shall be eligible for the benefit of the scheme irrespective of the length of service.”
8. It is evident that the dependents would became eligible for the benefit irrespective of the length of service of the deceased. But the scheme will apply only in the case of death of servants who were regularly appointed and employed in the service. In the case at hand, question arises as to whether the deceased father of the petitioner was 'employed in the service' of the 1st respondent Corporation, after his appointment. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that, the deceased was continuing 'on duty' after the date on which he had reported for joining duty. Such a contention is based on Ext.P5 certificate, as well as on Rule 6(e) of Part I KS & SSR. But whether the definition of the term 'on duty' can be taken as a criteria for satisfying the condition stipulated in the scheme, which require “employed in service”, is the question.
9. While adjudicating the issue the paramount consideration should be to the objective of the scheme, is the opinion of this court. A scheme providing compassionate employment to dependents of deceased regular employees, is basically one intended to help the bereaved family in order to tide over an unforeseen acute financial crisis resulting out of the abrupt stoppage of income derived from the employment of the deceased person upon which they were depending for livelihood. The family should have dependent upon the income derived out of employment of the deceased and their should be an abrupt stoppage of the income due to the death of the deceased. This is clearly discernible, because the scheme had incorporated a limit with respect to the family income of the dependents. It is purely to tide over an unforeseen financial crisis. By the scheme what is permitted is an appointment of the dependent family member by overlooking the normal and acceptable procedure for selection.
10. In the case at hand, admittedly the deceased had not performed any duty nor had derived any salary or other benefits out of the employment . Therefore on an active consideration, this court is of the firm opinion that, the deceased cannot include in the category of a person 'employed in the service' of the 1st respondent, enumerated under clause 15 of Ext. P9 scheme. In this regard, while confirming the opinion as above, much reliance is placed on various legal precedents in which the objectives of compassionate employment schemes are settled both by the hon'ble apex court and by this court.
11. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, eventhough the deceased was not deriving income pursuant to the regular appointment, he was continuing as a provisional employee and the family was dependent on the income derived from such employment. Unfortunately, the scheme does not provide for compassionate employment with respect to deceased provisional employees. Hence this court cannot extend any benefit to the petitioner or to any other family member of the deceased person.
12. Under the above mentioned circumstances the impugned order does not warrant interference. Consequently the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE pmn/