SANGEETHA K P vs THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD.,

2026:KER:38231
W.P.(C) No.14235 of 2024
: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
ND
TUESDAY, THE 2 DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 14235 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SANGEETHA K P
AGED 35 YEARS
D/O LATE SANTHA, CHAKKINGAL HOUSE , AREEKODE P.O,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673639
BY ADVS. SMT.RESHMA E.
SMT.ANNA SONIE
SMT.ATHIRA V.M.
SMT.ATHEENA ANTONY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
KOTTAYAM,KERALA, PIN - 686004
2 THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.SHRI.ABEL TOM BENNY
SRI.D.PREM KAMATH
SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)
SHRI.AARON ZACHARIAS BENNY
SHRI.CLINT JUDE LEWIS
SMT.BIJITHA B. BOSE
SMT.JYOTHIKA KRISHNA
SHRI.ALAN J YOGYAVEEDU
OTHER PRESENT:
SC- N RAJESH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

2026:KER:38231
W.P.(C) No.14235 of 2024
: 2 :
VIJU ABRAHAM, J. “CR”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.14235 of 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
nd
Dated this the 2 day of June, 2026
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P18 order and
seeking a direction to appoint the petitioner as 'Junior Assistant' under
the Compassionate Employment Scheme.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are
as follows:
The petitioner's mother passed away on 06.10.2001, while she was
st
working as a “worker” under the 1 respondent Plantation Corporation
Kerala Ltd. The petitioner submitted an application for Compassionate
st
Employment under the dying-in-harness scheme before the 1
respondent. As per Ext.P3, the request submitted by the petitioner to
include her in the list of Junior Assistants was accepted, and she was
included in the list of applicants seeking appointment as Junior Assistant
under the Compassionate Employment Scheme. In Ext.P4, the waiting
list of Junior Assistant under the Compassionate Employment Scheme,
the petitioner is Rank No.3. It is the case of the petitioner that though
the petitioner was included in the waiting list in the year 2012, she has
st
not been appointed as a permanent Junior Assistant in the 1 respondent
Corporation so far. While so, during 2013, the petitioner was appointed

2026:KER:38231
W.P.(C) No.14235 of 2024
: 3 :
as Junior Assistant on daily wages as per Ext.P5, and the said
appointment is still renewed periodically. Thereafter, Ext.P7
st
communication was issued by the Government directing the 1
respondent Corporation to take steps to grant an appointment on the
application submitted under the Compassionate Employment Scheme
without any delay. The Government issued Ext.P9 Government Order in
the matter of Compassionate Employment Scheme to provide
employment assistance to the dependents of Government servants who
are dying-in-harness under State Public Sector Undertakings, which
mandated that the applications for the appointment under the
Compassionate Employment Scheme should be submitted to the
Administrative Department controlling the concerned Public Sector
st
Undertaking. In compliance with the same, the 1 respondent took a
Board decision on 09.02.2021 to transfer all applications seeking
appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme to its
Administrative Department, i.e., the Agricultural Department, as per
Ext.P10. Subsequent to Ext.P10, Ext.P11 letter was forwarded by the
st
1 respondent to the Government. The petitioner, on the basis of
Ext.P13, would submit that there are vacancies of Junior Assistants and
that, out of 21 vacancies of Junior Assistants, 16 vacancies are reported
to the Public Service Commission, which reveals that 5 posts are set
apart for appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme.
As no action was taken for the appointment of the petitioner under the

2026:KER:38231
W.P.(C) No.14235 of 2024
: 4 :
Compassionate Employment Scheme, a writ petition was filed as WP(C)
No.36244 of 2022, which was disposed of as per Ext.P14 judgment
directing the Government to consider and to take a final decision in the
st
matter. Pursuant to Ext.P14 judgment, the 1 respondent submitted
nd
Ext.P15 letter to the 2 respondent Government enlisting the seniority
list of applicants in the Junior Assistant category, wherein the petitioner
st
is included as Sl.No.3. In Ext.P15, it is reiterated by the 1 respondent
Corporation that out of the 21 vacancies existing in the cadre, 5
vacancies may be allotted to the candidates under the Compassionate
Employment Scheme. Thereafter, pursuant to the direction issued in
nd
Ext.P14 judgment, the 2 respondent issued Ext.P16 order directing the
st
1 respondent, Plantation Corporation, to take necessary steps to
consider the applications submitted under the Compassionate
Employment Scheme on seniority basis, for appointment in the
existing/arising general/last grade posts in the Corporation, complying
with the directions stipulated in Ext.P9 Government Order. In
compliance with the directions issued by this Court, Ext.P18 order was
st
issued by the 1 respondent denying the appointment of the petitioner,
on the ground that in the seniority list of Junior Assistant post under
Compassionate Employment Scheme, the petitioner is only Sl. No.3, and
there are 40 other candidates above the petitioner in the list, and at
present, there are more than 50% employees in the Corporation
appointed under the Compassionate Employment Scheme and therefore,

2026:KER:38231
W.P.(C) No.14235 of 2024
: 5 :
the request of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Junior
Assistant under the Compassionate Employment Scheme cannot be
considered at present. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ
petition has been filed.
st
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 1 respondent
mainly contending that while the request of the petitioner for
appointment as Junior Assistant under the Compassionate Employment
Scheme was pending consideration, she was appointed on a daily wage
basis as per Ext.R1(a) proceedings, and as seen in the conditions
attached to the engagement of the petitioner in R1(a) proceedings, the
engagement of the petitioner is on daily wage basis and on condition
that the petitioner shall not raise any claim for permanent appointment
in the Corporation in the post of Junior Assistant or in any other post
either during the currency of contract or afterwards. It is further
submitted that the petitioner accepted Ext.R1(a) on a further condition
that the said engagement will not confer any right on her to claim
regularisation in employment or preference in any appointment in the
Corporation. In view of the conditions in Ext.R1(a), the petitioner cannot
now raise any claim for appointment under the Compassionate
Employment Scheme. Ext.R1(c) communication was issued by the
Government directing to take necessary steps to consider the application
under the Compassionate Employment Scheme complying with the
stipulations in Ext.P9 Government Order and going by Clause 30(a) of

2026:KER:38231
W.P.(C) No.14235 of 2024
: 6 :
Ext.P9 Government Order, the appointment under the Compassionate
Employment Scheme is to be set off against direct recruitment vacancies
and that has to be confined within the 50% of the total vacancies for
direct recruitment. It is further contended in the counter affidavit that as
of now, 58.18% of the total strength of employees have been appointed
under the Compassionate Employment Scheme, and any appointment
made will be in violation of the conditions in Ext.P9 Government Order.
It is further stated that since the Corporation is facing a severe financial
crisis, recruitment even in vacancies notified to the Public Service
Commission has been kept in abeyance. It is further submitted that there
is significant shift in the operational, administrative and functional
facets of the Corporation and on account of the same, the respondent
Corporation has to revise its staff pattern and therefore, has initiated
efforts for restructuring the staff pattern and the vacancy position in
each cadre and it can be finalised only after the completion of this
exercise which owing to its very extensive nature in time and labour
intensive exercise and that until such exercise is completed, nothing can
be conclusively stated regarding the vacancy positions in various cadres
in the Corporation including those to be appointed under the
Compassionate Employment Scheme. It is also submitted that there are
other eligible candidates waiting for appointment under the
Compassionate Employment Scheme for a longer period than the
st
petitioner. On the basis of the same, it is submitted by the 1 respondent

2026:KER:38231
W.P.(C) No.14235 of 2024
: 7 :
that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs as sought for in the
writ petition.
st
4. An additional counter affidavit has been filed by the 1
respondent as directed by this Court on 06.12.2024, wherein it is stated
that since the employment under the Compassionate Employment
Scheme is not a method of appointment and is only intended to get over
the penury caused to the family of the deceased, the compassionate
employment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time. In the
additional affidavit it is reiterated that going by Ext.P9 Government
Order, the appointment under Compassionate Employment Scheme is to
be set off against direct recruitment vacancies and that has to be
confined within the 50% of the total vacancies for direct recruitment and
at present appointments under the Compassionate Employment Scheme
constitute 58.78% of the total cadre strength, and therefore, if any
appointment is made, it will be in violation of the conditions in Ext.P9
Government Order. On the basis of the same, the learned counsel
st
appearing for the 1 respondent sought dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard the rival contentions on both sides.
6. A perusal of Ext.P18 would reveal that the request of the
petitioner for appointment under the Compassionate Employment
Scheme has not been rejected, but it only says that the appointment
under the Compassionate Employment Scheme has already exceeded the
50% fixed as per Ext.P9 order and therefore, the claim of the petitioner

2026:KER:38231
W.P.(C) No.14235 of 2024
: 8 :
will be considered later. Though that is the only reason stated in Ext.P18
to deny the benefit of the petitioner, in the counter affidavit filed, the
respondents have taken various other contentions. It is settled law that
the order impugned cannot be strengthened by way of filing a counter-
affidavit raising various other contentions in support of the same. Since
other contentions have been raised, I am of the view that those
contentions also have to be considered.
7. One of the contentions raised by the respondent Corporation is
that the petitioner has already been engaged on daily wage basis as
evident from Ext.R1(a) and it is specified in Ext.R1(a) that the petitioner
shall not raise any claim for permanent appointment in the Corporation
in the post of Junior Assistant or in any other post either during the
currency of contract or afterwards and therefore, the petitioner cannot
claim an appointment after he has accepted Ext.R1(a). But the said
contention cannot be accepted at all since in Ext.R1(a), there is no
undertaking given by the petitioner, nor is there any condition
stipulating that once the petitioner has been appointed temporarily on a
daily wage basis as per Ext.R1(a), the petitioner has forgone the right
for appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme.
Therefore, the said contention is only to be rejected.
8. Further contention raised in the counter affidavit is that the
Corporation is facing a serious financial crisis, and it does not favour
large-scale permanent appointments, inviting huge financial obligation

2026:KER:38231
W.P.(C) No.14235 of 2024
: 9 :
and that they have kept in abeyance even recruitment in vacancies
notified to the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the question to be
decided is whether a ban on regular appointments would automatically
act as a bar for making any compassionate appointment. I am of the view
that it can never act as a bar for appointment under the Compassionate
Employment Scheme, since the Compassionate Employment Scheme is
treated as an exemption to help a family to survive the sudden financial
destitution. The High Court of Mumbai in Sunil Gundu Desai v. State
of Maharashtra & Others [2021 Supreme(Bombay) 1204] has
considered an issue as to whether the Government resolution imposing a
ban on fresh recruitment will apply to the appointments made in the
Compassionate Employment Scheme and held that the Government
Resolutions imposing ban on fresh recruitment do not apply to
appointments made on compassionate basis, as they are kept outside the
purview of the general ban. High Court of Mumbai in Anusaya W. d/o
Anil Bhosale v. The State of Maharashtra [2025
Supreme(Bombay) 2002] considered a similar question and held that
Compassionate appointments are exempted from recruitment bans
aimed at new posts, as their purpose is to assist families in financial
distress, following the death of a breadwinner. The Court, while entering
into such a conclusion, has also held that the appointment under the
Compassionate Employment Scheme does not constitute a new post
creation and it should be treated distinctly from regular recruitment

2026:KER:38231
W.P.(C) No.14235 of 2024
: 10 :
under the Government regulation, emphasising the purpose of
mitigating family hardship. Therefore, the contention raised based on
the financial difficulties faced by the Corporation and the ban that has
been imposed on the appointment, even through the Public Service
Commission, cannot be a reason for not considering the claim of the
petitioner for compassionate appointment.
st
9. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the 1
respondent is that since the Compassionate Employment Scheme is to
enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis,
the petitioner has no right whatsoever to claim any appointment beyond
the Scheme and that the petitioner cannot claim appointment at this
distance of time. This Court is unable to accept the said contention also
essentially for the reason that the claim of the petitioner has been
accepted by the Corporation as evident from Ext.P3 and has been
included in the pending list for appointment as Junior Assistant under
the Compassionate Employment Scheme. Having accepted the
entitlement of the petitioner for inclusion in the list for appointment
under the Compassionate Employment Scheme, only for the delay in not
making an appointment due to want of vacancies, I am of the view that
the claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground of delay in
making the appointment.
10. Yet another contention raised by the learned Counsel
st
appearing for the 1 respondent, based on Ext.R1(c) Government Order,

2026:KER:38231
W.P.(C) No.14235 of 2024
: 11 :
is that the steps for consideration of the application under the
Compassionate Employment Scheme are to be done in compliance with
Ext.P9 Government Order. It is true that in Ext.P9 Government Order,
especially in Clause 30 it is mandated that the appointment under the
Compassionate Employment Scheme is to be set off against direct
recruitment vacancies and that has to be confined within the 50% of the
total vacancies for direct recruitment and based on the same it is
contended in the additional counter affidavit that as of now the number
of persons appointed under the Compassionate Employment Scheme
exceeds 50% and therefore, no further appointments could be made and
if any appointment is made, the same will violate the conditions in
Ext.P9 Government Order. Though a stand has been taken in the counter
affidavit that the vacancy to which appointments have been made under
the Compassionate Employment Scheme has exceeded 50%, as per the
averments in the counter affidavit, it is seen that the Corporation is also
not very sure about the vacancy position in respect of various cadres in
the Corporation, including those to be appointed under the
Compassionate Employment Scheme. Since the Corporation is
considering the review of the cadre strength and staff pattern as per the
present requirement, the exact number of vacancies available will be
clear only after completion of the said exercise. The stand of the
respondent Corporation is that the actual vacancies available for being
appointed under the Compassionate Employment Scheme can only be

2026:KER:38231
W.P.(C) No.14235 of 2024
: 12 :
finalised after the exercise of review of the cadre strength and staff
pattern. But an important aspect to be noted is that Clause 30(a) of
Ext.P9 only says that the appointment under the Compassionate
Employment Scheme is to be set off against direct recruitment vacancies
and that has to be confined within the 50% of the total vacancies for
direct recruitment. So, what is important as per Ext.P9 is that the
vacancies set apart for direct recruitment and appointment under the
Compassionate Employment Scheme shall be confined within 50% of the
total vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment. Since the claim of the
petitioner has not been rejected in toto as per Ext.P18, I am of the view
st
that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the 1
respondent, after exercising the review of cadre strength and staff
pattern and earmarking the exact number of vacancies available for
being appointed through the Compassionate Employment Scheme.
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:
st
The 1 respondent shall complete the exercise of
1.
restructuring the staff pattern and for quantification of the
vacancy position in each cadre regarding the total vacancies
that are available for appointment under the Compassionate
Employment Scheme, as provided in Clause 30(a) of Ext.P9,
without any delay, at any rate, within an outer limit of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
2. After the said exercise is completed, if vacancies are

2026:KER:38231
W.P.(C) No.14235 of 2024
: 13 :
available as per Clause 30(a) of Ext.P9, steps shall be taken
to make appointments under the Compassionate
Appointment Scheme, strictly on the basis of the seniority in
Ext.P4(a).
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sm/

2026:KER:38231
W.P.(C) No.14235 of 2024
: 14 :
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 14235 OF 2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF
THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER DATED
27.11.2001 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF
CALICUT.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING
NO PD/PA/6531 DATED 29.12.2008.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
18.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE WAITING LIST OF POSTS
OF JUNIOR ASSISTANT PREPARED UNDER THE
COMPASSIONATE EMPLOYMENT SCHEME UNDER
1ST RESPONDENT CORPORATION.
Exhibit P4(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE WAITING LIST OF POSTS
OF JUNIOR ASSISTANT PREPARED UNDER THE
COMPASSIONATE EMPLOYMENT SCHEME RECEIVED
BY ANOTHER INCUMBENT UNDER RTI ACT 2005
DATED 18.11.2023
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER DATED 31.07.2013.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED
BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
ON 31.08.2013 FOR THE YEAR 2013.
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 19.05.2015 TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
09.07.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
GO(P) NO. 32/2007/PLG DATED 07.06.2007.
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 463RD
BOARD MEETINGS OF PLANTATION CORPORATION
HELD ON 09.02.2021.
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FORWARDED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PRIVATE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE MINISTER DATED
15.03.2021.
Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTANIER DATED
20.07.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT BY ANOTHER JOB ASPIRANT
THROUGH RTI ACT.

2026:KER:38231
W.P.(C) No.14235 of 2024
: 15 :
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE SAME
DATED 31.08.2021 RECEIVED THROUGH RTI
ACT.
Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
21.03.2023 IN WP ( C ) NO.36244 OF 2022.
Exhibit P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
15.05.2023 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
08.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 16.12.2023.
Exhibit P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
08.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) True copy of proceedings bearing No. P
and A/F/1460/ 2635 dated 31.7.2013
issued to the petitioner.
Exhibit R1(b) True copy of proceedings bearing No.P
andA/F/4835 dated 16.2.2024 issued to
the petitioner.
Exhibit R1(c) True copy of the communication bearing
No.AGRI-PUI/45/2023-AGRI dated 2.6.2023
issued by the 2nd respondent.
Exhibit R1(d) True copy of the judgment of this
Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No.34175/2016
dated 21.3.2023.
Exhibit R1(e) True copy of the letter dated 21.06.2022
issued by the 1st respondent to the PSC
along with its English Translation.