Kerala High Court
Rajeev Thilak vs State Of Kerala on 20 February, 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/17TH KARTHIKA, 1938
WP(C).No. 20409 of 2015 (A)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
RAJEEV THILAK, S/O.K.R THILAKAN,
KAREEPADATH HOUSE, ENGANDIYOOR P.O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 615.
BY ADVS.SRI.DEEPU THANKAN
KUM.P.V.JAYALAKSHMY
SRI.THOMAS.C.KONDODY
SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
TAXES(A) DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
3. KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M & M)
CORPORATION LTD., SASTHAMANGALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN
R2 BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO, SC
BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH, SC
R3 BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN.T., SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 08-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 20409 of 2015 (A)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT.ORDER DATED 20/2/2002.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 7/8/2004.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE FATHER OF
THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA IN WP NO 26878/2007
DATED 3/4/2009.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA IN W.P(C) NO 4318/2010 DATED
08/11/2011.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO 7445/2013
DATED 18-03-2013
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY GOVT.ORDER DATED 01-08-2013.
EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO 32207/2011
DATED 29/5/2015.
EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF GOVT. ORDER DATED 9.1.2010.
EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT DATED 24.3.2015 IN
W.P.NO.17548/2014 P.
EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT DATED 7.4.2015 IN WA.NO.805/2015 IN
WP.NO.17548/2014 P.
EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT DATED 9.7.2014 IN WP.NO.9219/2012.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
-----------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 20409 of 2015
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2016
J U D G M E N T
1.The short issue in this writ petition is whether a dependant son of an abkari worker, who perished consequent on the loss of employment due to the ban of arrack in the State, is entitled to the benefit of Ext.P2 Government Order to provide employment on daily wages under the Kerala State Beverages Corporation, on his attaining the age of majority.
2.Ext.P2 G.O. was formulated in the year, 2004, to provide livelihood to the family of arrack workers, who have committed suicide due to the ban of arrack in the State. It is prescribed in Ext.P2 that only a dependant son who has not completed 38 years of age will be eligible for employment on daily wages under the 3rd respondent Corporation. The petitioner was a minor at the relevant point of time. Admittedly, he was the W.P.(C) No. 20409 of 2015 ..2..
dependant son of an arrack worker, who committed suicide. There is no dispute as to the fact that the petitioner's father, namely, K.R.Thilakan, would also come within the ambit of Ext.P2 GO.
3.However, the request of the petitioner was turned down by the Government by Ext.P7 order dated 01.08.2013, stating that the scheme, as per Ext.P2, was a one time measure to provide aid to the family of abkari workers at the relevant point of time and it cannot be treated as a scheme for giving employment as in die in harness. It is pointed out that an application made after several years cannot be considered in terms of Ext.P2. Therefore, the only question to be considered is whether Ext.P2 would enure to the benefit of a minor dependant son at the relevant point of time to make a claim when he attains the age of majority.
4.The scheme, as per Ext.P2, as a whole clearly indicates that the intention of the Government was to give employment to the dependant son of the abkari W.P.(C) No. 20409 of 2015 ..3..
workers, who perished due to unemployment consequent on the ban of arrack in the State. Therefore, it contemplates a class of persons, who are eligible to apply. The Government formulated Ext.P2 GO in order to tide over the financial difficulties of such class of persons, who by virtue of unfortunate reasons had to live in penurious circumstances. Therefore, any dependant son, by virtue of the relation with abkari worker, would come within the ambit of Ext.P2 irrespective of the fact that he was minor or major at the relevant point of time.
5.The main contention in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent Corporation is that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner has not completed the age of 18 years and his name was not included in the scheme of the Government. It is to be noted that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was only 15 years and he could not have applied for employment. He applied for employment in terms of Ext.P2 immediately on his W.P.(C) No. 20409 of 2015 ..4..
attaining the age of majority.
6.Now, it is relevant to refer to the similar challenges made before this Court in WP(C) Nos.4318/2010 & 9219/2012. In WP(C) No.4318/2010, this Court, after adverting to the fact that there is no prescription of minimum age, found that it is not open for the Kerala Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Board, the 2nd respondent herein, to prescribe a cut-off date to submit the application as there is no prescription in the G.O. The above writ petition was also filed by a dependant son, who was a minor at the time of formulation of Ext.P2 and submitted application in terms of Ext.P2 on attaining the age of majority. This Court found that the above writ petitioner, who was a minor at the time of formulation of Ext.P2, also is eligible to be included for employment on daily wages under the Corporation.
7.In similar to the above challenge, this Court, in WP(C) No.9219/2012, stated in paragraph 12 as follows;
"12. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that very purpose of the Government Order was to W.P.(C) No. 20409 of 2015 ..5..
serve as a helping hand to the dependents of arrack workers, because of the adverse circumstances resulted by virtue of the policy decision imposing ban on arrack. It was in the said back ground, that the petitioner submitted application on 05.08.2005, though there was a shortage of 5 days to attain majority. In any view of the matter, on the date of preparation of list by third respondent in the year 2006, the petitioner, who had already attained majority, was eligible to be considered, which made the 3rd respondent to append the name of the petitioner in the supplementary list and forward the same to the Government along with the main list."
8. It can be seen from the above judgments that a minor dependant son shall, at the time of formulation of Ext.P2, also become eligible to apply for employment when he attains majority and any prescription of cut-off date by the 2nd respondent is beyond their power. It is also to be noted that there is no prescription of any cut-off time in Ext.P2 and also no prescription, fixing minimum age to submit the application. The very object of Ext.P2 is to tide over the difficulty faced by the family on account of the death of the abkari workers (suicide) due to unemployment, resulted from the ban of arrack in the State. That object cannot be obliterated by having a stipulation by the 2nd or 3rd respondent that W.P.(C) No. 20409 of 2015 ..6..
it was intended only for a specific period without such a period being mentioned in Ext.P2. Therefore, all such persons, who would satisfy the definition of "dependant" would also eligible to apply in terms of Ext.P2.
9.It is also to be noted that the Government passed Ext.P9 GO, extending the benefit of Ext.P2 to a dependant daughter and a dependant son in the year 2012. This would indicate that the Government did not intend to put Ext.P2 GO in operation only for a specific time. Since the petitioner had submitted the application immediately on his attaining the age of majority, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is to be set aside.
10.Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as follows; 7 Ext.P7 is set aside.
7 The 2nd respondent shall forward the name of the petitioner to the Government to engage him on daily wages by the 3rd respondent, the Kerala State W.P.(C) No. 20409 of 2015 ..7..
Beverages (M & M) Corporation Ltd., within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
7 The Government shall pass consequent orders within a period of one month thereafter.
7 No costs.
Sd/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE bka/-