BAIJU KUMAR Vs. DEO TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two cases have been filed by the very same petitioner to enforce his right under R.51B of Chap.XIVA of the K.E.R. So, they are heard and disposed of by a common Judgment.

(2.) O.P. No.14830/99 - M

(3.) The 2nd respondent Manager has filed a counter affidavit in the Original Petition. In the said counter affidavit, it is submitted that he has received Ext. P1 application. It is also stated that by Ext.R2(b), he has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that Ext. P3 order has only prospective effect and the dependents of employees dying in harness on or after 30.3.1990 alone are eligible for employment assistance. The Manager has also produced Ext.R2(c) communication of the Government to the Headmaster of an aided school, which states that Ext. P4 has got only prospective effect.