Resmi O.R. vs State of Kerala and Others

Narayana Kurup, J.—The sine-qua-non for getting employment under the dying-in-harness scheme as envisaged under Rule 9A of chapter XXIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules is that the claimant should be a dependent of a non-teaching staff as on the relevant date. The petitioner''s father who was a clerk died on October 3, 1989. As on that date she was a minor. However, she got married in the year 1993. That apart, her mother was gainfully employed in the very same school as teacher and retired only in the year 1999. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent it is stated that the petitioner''s husband is employed in Gulf and they are financially very well off. It is also stated that the petitioner''s mother was employed in the school as teacher. The aforesaid averments will make it clear that she was not a dependent upon her father even as on the date of the death or at any time thereafter which will disentitle her to claim employment under the dying-in-harness scheme. We are also very much aware of the observation made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, wherein it has been held as follows:

"Compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time after the crisis is over."

In the aforesaid view of the learned single Judge was right in dismissing the O.P. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.