Point of Law: The concept of compassionate appointment has been recognized as an exception to general rule and therefore the scheme or policy is binding both on employer and the employee - It is settled law that no applicant has any vested right to claim an appointment under compassionate ground and the same can be claimed only if the rules provide for the same. A specific time limit of two years from date of death of the Government Servant is fixed as per scheme.

JUDGMENT :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

1. The applicant in O.A. (EKM) No. 468 of 2019 has filed this original petition aggrieved by the order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, Addl. Bench Ernakulam dated 28.11.2019 in O.A. (EKM) No. 468 of 2019.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

Petitioner’s father Late Thomas K.X. while working as Joint Regional Transport Officer, North Paravoor died on 25.06.2011. At the time of his death, the petitioner was studying for B.D.S. (4 year Course) at Annoor Dental College Hospital, Muvatupuzha. The other legal heirs of Late Thomas K.X. mentioned in Annexure-A2 legal heirship certificate have given their no objection in appointing the petitioner under the compassionate appointment scheme. In June 2014 petitioner submitted an application seeking an extension of time to apply for enrollment under the compassionate appointment scheme and the same was rejected by Annexure-A5 order holding that the scheme does not have any provision for granting an extension of time for submitting an application. Thereafter in September 2016, an application was submitted through proper channel claiming compassionate appointment under Annexure-A3 scheme. By Annexure-A6, the 3rd respondent forwarded the same to the second respondent. On intimation as per Annexure-A7 that the application is defective, the petitioner resubmitted the same after curing the defect. Thereafter by Annexure-A8 order, the 1st respondent rejected the application for the reason that there is a delay of more than 3 years in submitting the application as the same was submitted only on 18.04.2017. The petitioner could not complete her studies due to paucity of funds and being in dire need of employment for sustenance again represented before the 1st respondent as per Annexure-A9 requesting to reconsider the matter. As per Annexure-A10 reply given on the floor of the Legislative Assembly on 14.03.2018, the petitioner came to know that the application will not be considered favourably since the application for appointment under the scheme was made three years after the period stipulated. Petitioner avers that the Government itself as per Annexure-A11 order has condoned the delay in making the application in the case of another employee. Thereupon, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1303 of 2018 which was disposed of as per Annexure-A12 order directing the petitioner to file a representation before the 1st respondent with a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to take a decision on the same within a period of two months. In furtherance of Annexure-A12 order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner submitted Annexure-A13 representation before the Government and after hearing the petitioner, the Government issued Annexure-A14 order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for employment under the compassionate employment scheme. It is challenging Annexure-A14 order that the petitioner approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal filing O.A. (EKM) No. 468 of 2019.

3. A detailed reply statement was filed by the 2nd respondent mainly contending that the request of the petitioner for an extension of time for submitting an application for employment under the scheme till she completed the BDS course was rejected as there is no provision for granting such extension as per the scheme. Likewise, the application seeking compassionate appointment submitted by the petitioner was also considered by the Government and rejected for the reason of delay of more than three years in submitting the application.

4. The Tribunal on a consideration of the rival contentions dismissed the original application as per order dated 28.11.2019 holding that the petitioner has not submitted the application within a time limit of two years prescribed as per Clause 19 of G.O. (P) No. 12/99/P&ARD dated 24.05.1999 and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. It is aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal da