The main legal point established in the judgment is that the eligibility for compassionate employment under statutory provisions is subject to the interpretation of relevant Government Orders, and in this case, the exclusion of married daughters/sons from the purview of dependants under the Government Order of 1995 influenced the court's decision.

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

The question that has come up for consideration in these cases is whether a married daughter of a person who died in harness would get the benefit of R.51B Chapter XIV-A of Kerala Education Rules in the case of teaching staff and under R.9A of Chapter XXIV-A of K.E.R. in the case of non-teaching staff.

2. The object and purpose of granting compassionate employment is to give employment to the dependent of a family on the untimely death of the breadwinner. Claimants should have undergone normal selection process to get appointment but for the claim for compassionate appointment. As held by the Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138 the whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for the post held by the deceased. The Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar (1996) 1 SCC 301 observed that the very object of appointment of a dependant of the deceased employees who the in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. Above mentioned statutory provisions have been incorporated in the Kerala Education Rules to achieve objective mentioned herein before. Government have also issued various orders laying down eligibility criteria and also other procedural criteria to be followed.

3. Previously various Government Orders held the field for giving benefit to a dependant of a person who died in harness. Those Government Orders were subsequently replaced by statutory provisions. In the instant case as far as teaching staff is concerned claim could be made under R.51B of Chap. XIV-A of K.E.R. which is extracted below:

"51B. The Manager shall give employment to a dependant of an aided school teacher dying in harness. Government Orders relating to employment assistance to the dependants of Government servants dying in haniess shall mutatis mutandis, apply in the matter of such appointments."

As far as non-teaching staff is concerned the relevant provision is R.9A of Chap. XXIV-A which is extracted below:

"9A. The Manager shall give employment to a dependant of the non-teaching staff on an aided school dying in haniess. Government Orders relating to employment assistance to the dependants of Government servants dying in harness shall, mut at is mutandis,apply in the matter of such appointments."

After the introduction of statutory provisions an applicant could submit an application to claim benefit of the said statutory provisions. This Court already took the view in Narayanan v. State of Kerala (1998 (2) KLT 446) that the date of death is not the criteria to claim the benefit of the said provisions. The question is whether still the persons who claims the benefit would have continued to be a dependant of the deceased person. Manager is bound to consider his application for appointment, if the application shows that he is still a dependant entitled to the benefit of the statutory provisions. As soon as the vacancy arises and the applicant is still a dependant and fully eligible and qualified to be appointed, the Manager is bound to consider his statutory claim. The eligibility of a person to get appointment is to be determined as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy after the death of the employee. There must also be no other senior claimants in that category. Eventhough a person is dependent but not qualified or eligible for appointment when the vacancy arises the Manager is free to appoint another person as per rules. But as soon as the claimant becomes qualified and continued to be a dependant, the Manager is bound to consider his statutory claim.

4. In O.P. No. 13961/98, the petitioner's mother was a teacher who died in harness on 29.5.1993. Petitioner has passed S.S.L.C. in 1985 and Hindi Bhooshan in February, 1990. He obtained Sahityacharya