Compassionate Employment Cannot Be Denied To Dependents Who Have Been 'Fighting For Claim' By Fixing Subsequent Cut-Off Date: Kerala HC

In this case, the petitioners were denied compassionate employment on the grounds that the benefit would only be extended to the dependents of employees of private aided colleges who passed away after October 7, 2013.

Justice N.Nagaresh stated that the government in an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners had already accorded sanction to the management to ignore the cut-off date.

“It was the legal fight of many dependents of employees which has brought about Ext.P6 Scheme for Compassionate Employment for dependents of employees of Private Aided Colleges. The Government or the 3rd respondent (Secretary of a private aided college) cannot defeat the claim for compassionate employment of those dependents who have been fighting for their claim, by fixing a cut-off date while framing the Scheme. In the circumstances of the case, it would be a travesty of justice if compassionate employment is denied to the petitioners on the basis of a subsequent cut-off date prescribed in the Scheme.”

The fathers of both the petitioners passed away while working in NSS colleges and they were qualified for compassionate employment. The first petitioner's father passed away on July 25, 2008 and the second petitioner's father passed away on August 09, 2010.

It is to be noted that initially compassionate employment scheme was applicable only to government colleges. In 2020, after many rounds of litigation, the government issued an order framing scheme for compassionate employment for dependents of employees of private aided colleges for those who passed away after October 07, 2013.

The petitioners filed another writ petition in which they were informed that compassionate appointment would only be given for employees who died after October 07, 2013. The Court disposed of that writ petition with a direction to the government to hear the petitioners and the management.

The petitioners submitted that denial of compassionate employment was arbitrary. It was stated that even though the scheme was extended to dependants of employees of private aided college who died after October 07, 2013, the Court in the earlier writ petition, had directed the government to consider whether the cut-off date should be made applicable to the petitioners. It was thus submitted that even after the government gave sanction for appointing the petitioners by ignoring the cut-off date, the management was showing reluctancy.

The management submitted that scheme of compassionate employment for dependants of employees of private aided colleges could only be applied prospectively from October 07, 2013 and not dependants of deceased employees who died before October 07, 2013. It was also stated that when there is an existing policy, it must be strictly adhered to.

The Court noted that cut-off date was waived in certain deserving cases. It also noted that the Government has also accorded sanction to the management to ignore the cut-off date by considering the fact that similar persons were given such benefits.

The Court pointed out that usually it would not direct the management to grant compassionate employment by deviating from the terms of the scheme. In the facts of the case, the Court noted that it was the legal fight of the petitioners and other dependants that resulted in a direction of the Court to the government for implementation of the scheme. It further stated that the government that implemented the scheme, has accorded sanction to the management to consider the case of the petitioners positively.

Court stated, “It is the Government which framed Ext.P6 Scheme, which has accorded sanction to the 3rd respondent (management) to provide employment assistance under the Compassionate Employment Scheme to the petitioners, taking into consideration the facts of the case. The petitioners have been fighting for grant of compassionate employment, from the very beginning.

As such, the writ petition was allowed.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates D Kishore, Meera Gopinath, R Muraleekrishnan (Malakkara)

Counsel for Respondents: Senior Government Pleader Premchand R Nair, Advocate P Gopal

Case Title: Manu Kumar M K V State of Kerala

Case No:WP(C) NO. 36829 OF 2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 129