SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 5867

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
EMILIN P PAUL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 822 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.B.VINOD, SRI.AKBAR K.A., SRI.AZEEM SALIH
For the Respondents: SRI.V. VENUGOPAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The court affirms the importance of timely adjudication of statutory petitions for appointments under Dying-in-Harness Scheme.

Headnote:The petitioner, appointed as Full-Time Menial under the Dying-in-Harness Scheme, challenges the non-approval of her appointment post mother's death. The court orders the 1st respondent to consider her statutory Revision Petition (Ext.P7) within three months. Court highlighted the necessity of expediting the review process due to petitioner’s ongoing service without salary.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's appointment under dying-in-harness scheme after mother's death. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court directs timely consideration of statutory petitions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)

JUDGMENT Dated this the 27th day of January, 2026 Petitioner states that she was appointed as a Full Time Menial (FTM) in St.Joseph HSS under the Corporate Management of Thrissur Archdioceses under the Dying-in-

Harness Scheme.

2. The petitioner states that her mother while working as UPSA died on 27.07.2023. The petitioner's father made an application along with the consent of the sister of the petitioner for appointing the petitioner in any suitable vacancy under the Corporate Management on 11.09.2023. Her appoint was on a vacancy caused by promotion of Smt.Ciji M.G. on

08.06.2022 as Attendant.

3. Initially, the appointment of the petitioner was not approved since the appointment on promotion of Smt.Ciji M.G. was not approved. The Corporate Manager had filed Appeal and Additional Director even after showing that the appointment of Smt.Ciji M.G. was approved by order dated 12.05.2025, refused to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Full Time Menial (FTM). The petitioner is working without any salary, contends the petitioner.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 6.

5. The petitioner would submit that he was given appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Scheme. After Ext.P5 order approving the appointment of Smt.Ciji M.G., there is no impediment for approving the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 30.10.2023.

6. Be that as it may, the petitioner has now preferred Ext.P7 Revision Petition before the 1st respondent. As Ext.P7 is a statutory Revision Petition, it would be only just and proper that the 1st respondent considers the same and passes appropriate orders thereon within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P7 Revision Petition and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top