Kerala HC Directs Plantation Corporation to Complete Cadre Review Before Deciding Compassionate Appointment Pending Since 2012

A daughter who has waited over a decade for a Junior Assistant post under the Compassionate Employment Scheme wins a direction from the Kerala High Court to force a cadre review and seniority-based appointment.

The Kerala High Court has directed the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. to complete its ongoing staff pattern restructuring exercise within three months and, if vacancies are found available under the applicable government order, to make appointments under the Compassionate Employment Scheme strictly on the basis of the seniority list. Justice Viju Abraham, sitting singly at Ernakulam, delivered the judgment on 2 June 2026 in a writ petition filed by Sangeetha K P, whose mother died in service on 6 October 2001. Sangeetha had been placed at Rank No. 3 in the Corporation's waiting list for Junior Assistant under the Compassionate Employment Scheme as far back as 2012, yet no permanent appointment followed. The court rejected each of the Corporation's defences — including a waiver argument based on a daily-wage engagement, a financial-crisis plea, and a lapse-of-time objection — before disposing of the petition with time-bound directions.

A Claim Accepted but Never Acted Upon

Sangeetha's mother was a worker with the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. when she died on 6 October 2001. Sangeetha applied for compassionate employment under the dying-in-harness scheme. By a communication dated 18 October 2012 (Ext.P3), the Corporation accepted her request and included her in the waiting list for the post of Junior Assistant under the Compassionate Employment Scheme. The waiting list (Ext.P4) placed her at Rank No. 3.

Despite that inclusion, no permanent appointment came. In July 2013, the Corporation appointed her as a Junior Assistant on daily wages (Ext.P5), an engagement that has been renewed periodically ever since. The Government separately issued a communication (Ext.P7) in May 2015 directing the Corporation to act on compassionate employment applications without delay.

A Government Order, GO(P) No. 32/2007/PLG dated 7 June 2007 (Ext.P9), governs compassionate employment in State public sector undertakings. Clause 30(a) of that order requires that appointments under the Compassionate Employment Scheme be set off against direct recruitment vacancies and confined within 50% of the total vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment. In February 2021, the Corporation's Board resolved to transfer all pending compassionate employment applications to its administrative department, the Agricultural Department (Ext.P10).

Sangeetha had earlier filed WP(C) No. 36244 of 2022, which was disposed of by a judgment dated 21 March 2023 (Ext.P14) directing the Government to consider and take a final decision. Pursuant to that judgment, the Corporation wrote to the Government (Ext.P15) reiterating that 5 of the 21 existing Junior Assistant vacancies could be allotted to compassionate appointment candidates. The Government then issued Ext.P16 on 8 June 2023 directing the Corporation to consider applications on a seniority basis in compliance with Ext.P9.

Despite all of this, the Corporation issued Ext.P18 on 8 February 2024 declining to appoint Sangeetha. The stated reason was that she was only Sl. No. 3 in the Junior Assistant seniority list, that there were 40 other candidates above her in a broader list, and that more than 50% of the Corporation's employees had already been appointed under the Compassionate Employment Scheme, making any further appointment a violation of Ext.P9. It was against Ext.P18 that the present writ petition was filed.

The Corporation's Defences and the Court's Reasoning

The Corporation raised four distinct defences in its counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit. Justice Viju Abraham addressed each in turn.

The daily-wage waiver argument. The Corporation contended that when Sangeetha accepted the daily-wage appointment in 2013, the engagement order (Ext.R1(a)) contained a condition that she would not raise any claim for permanent appointment either during or after the contract. The court rejected this outright. On examining Ext.R1(a), the court found that there was no undertaking given by Sangeetha, nor any condition stipulating that she had forgone her right to appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme by accepting the temporary daily-wage engagement. The contention was dismissed.

The financial crisis and recruitment ban. The Corporation argued that it was facing a severe financial crisis and had kept even Public Service Commission-notified vacancies in abeyance, so no large-scale permanent appointments were possible. The court held that a general ban on regular appointments cannot automatically bar compassionate appointments. It referred to two Bombay High Court decisions: Sunil Gundu Desai v. State of Maharashtra & Others [2021 Supreme(Bombay) 1204], which held that government resolutions imposing a ban on fresh recruitment do not apply to compassionate appointments as they are kept outside the purview of the general ban; and Anusaya W. d/o Anil Bhosale v. The State of Maharashtra [2025 Supreme(Bombay) 2002], which held that compassionate appointments are exempted from recruitment bans aimed at new posts because their purpose is to assist families in financial distress following the death of a breadwinner, and that such appointments do not constitute new post creation. The court adopted that reasoning and rejected the financial-crisis defence.

The lapse-of-time objection. The Corporation argued that compassionate employment is meant to tide over sudden financial destitution and cannot be claimed after such a long passage of time. The court declined to accept this. It reasoned that the Corporation had itself accepted Sangeetha's entitlement by including her in the waiting list as per Ext.P3. Having accepted that entitlement, the Corporation could not now reject her claim on the ground of delay when the delay was caused by the Corporation's own failure to make appointments due to want of vacancies.

The 50% cap under Ext.P9. This was the only ground stated in Ext.P18 itself. The Corporation maintained in its additional counter affidavit that 58.78% of its total cadre strength had already been appointed under the Compassionate Employment Scheme, so any further appointment would violate Clause 30(a) of Ext.P9. The court noted a significant internal inconsistency in the Corporation's own position: while claiming the 50% cap had been breached, the Corporation simultaneously admitted in its counter affidavit that it was not certain about the vacancy position across various cadres and that the exact numbers could only be determined after completing the cadre strength and staff pattern review exercise it had already initiated.

The court read Clause 30(a) carefully. It says that appointments under the Compassionate Employment Scheme are to be set off against direct recruitment vacancies and confined within 50% of the total vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment. The court observed that what matters under Ext.P9 is the proportion of vacancies set apart for direct recruitment, not a simple headcount of existing employees. Since the Corporation had not completed its cadre review and could not state the exact vacancy position with certainty, the 50% cap argument could not be used as a conclusive bar at this stage.

The court also noted a settled legal position: an impugned order cannot be strengthened by raising additional grounds in a counter affidavit that were not part of the order itself. Ext.P18 had only cited the 50% cap. The other defences were raised for the first time in the counter affidavit. The court nonetheless addressed all of them and rejected each.

Directions Issued

Justice Viju Abraham disposed of the writ petition with two specific directions.

First, the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. must complete the exercise of restructuring its staff pattern and quantifying the vacancy position in each cadre — specifically the total vacancies available for appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme as provided in Clause 30(a) of Ext.P9 — without any delay, and in any event within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

Second, after that exercise is completed, if vacancies are found to be available as per Clause 30(a) of Ext.P9, the Corporation must take steps to make appointments under the Compassionate Employment Scheme strictly on the basis of seniority as reflected in Ext.P4(a), the waiting list obtained under the RTI Act dated 18 November 2023.

Outcome

WP(C) No. 14235 of 2024 was disposed of on 2 June 2026. The Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. has three months from receipt of the judgment to complete its cadre review. Sangeetha K P, placed at Rank No. 3 in the Junior Assistant waiting list under the Compassionate Employment Scheme, remains in that position pending the outcome of the review. If vacancies are confirmed within the Clause 30(a) ceiling, appointments must follow in seniority order.