Dismissed

Subin Raj v. Manager, LIC of India

Kerala HC6 Nov 2013WP(C)/19921/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a deceased employee's sibling seeking compassionate appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. The court held that legal heirship is distinct from dependency and that the petitioner failed to prove financial dependence.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as finding no merit and noting non-joinder of a necessary party (the widow).

Subin Raj Vs Manager, LIC of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/15TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 19921 of 2013 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SUBIN RAJ, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.K.P.PAPPAN, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHINGAVANAM P.O NATTAKAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA

¶9

SMT.MEGHA K XAVIER

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA DIVISIONAL OFFICE, GEEVAN PRAKASH, PB NO.609 NAGAMBADAM, KOTTAYAM 686 001.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN, STANDING COUNSEL

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 19921 of 2013 (M)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶17

EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 9.6.11.

¶18

EXHIBIT P2.COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 1.2.2012 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT.

¶19

EXHIBIT P3.COPY OF SUCCESSION CERTTIFICATE DATED 18.8.2013.

¶20

EXHIBIT P4.COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 26.3.13 SWORN BY WIDOW OF PETITIONER'S BROTHER.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

“C.R”

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶26

==========================

¶27

W.P.(C). No.19921 OF 2013

¶28

==========================

¶29

Dated this the 6^th day of November, 2013

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P2 whereby the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme was rejected. The further prayers of the petitioner are for a declaration that he is entitled to get employment on compassionate ground under the respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to appoint him on the ground of his being a legal heir and dependant of deceased Sunil Raj. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are as follows:-

¶32

The petitioner is one of the siblings of one Sunil Raj who diedin-harness on 7.4.2011 while working as Assistant under the respondent. Pursuant to his death, their mother submitted an

¶33

W.P.(C).19921/13

¶34

¶35

application for appointment of the petitioner under the compassionate appointment scheme. The said request was rejected as per Ext.P2 dated 1.2.2012. The contention of the petitioner is that he is one of the dependants of the deceased Sunil Raj and therefore, entitled to get appointment under the said scheme. To substantiate the said contention, the petitioner produced Ext.P3 succession certificate before the respondent. It is in the said circumstances that this writ

¶36

petition has been filed with the above mentioned prayers.

¶37

2.Admittedly, the petitioner's brother Sunil Raj had obtained appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme on the death of their father in harness while working under the respondent. Subsequent to the death of Sunil Raj, the mother submitted two applications before the respondent viz., one seeking to provide employment to the petitioner under the compassionate appointment scheme and the other one for disbursement of the benefits payable consequent to the death of Sunil Raj. Her request for appointment of the petitioner under the

¶38

W.P.(C).19921/13

¶39

¶40

compassionate employment scheme was rejected as per Ext.P2 on the ground that the petitioner was not a dependant of late Sunil Raj. Ext.P2 is dated 1.2.2012. Subsequent to Ext.P2, the petitioner, his mother and sister filed O.P. (Succession) No.10/2012 before the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam. The widow of Sunil Raj was the respondent therein. Ext.P3 succession certificate certifies the petitioner, his mother and sister and the widow of late Sunil Raj as the legal heirs of late Sunil Raj. Based on Ext.P3, the mother of the petitioner received the amount sanctioned towards the death benefits of Sunil Raj. Essentially, the contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P3 succession certificate would reveal that he is a dependant of the deceased Sunil Raj and therefore, he is entitled to get appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. There can be no doubt that Ext.P3 succession certificate certified only the heirship and not dependency and that dependency is distinctively different from heirship. True that a heir can also be a dependent for the purpose of employment assistance scheme. A bare perusal of Ext.P3 would reveal that it was

¶41

W.P.(C).19921/13

¶42

¶43

filed under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to collect the net amount due from LIC of India to the legal heirs of deceased Sunil Raj in respect of the scheduled amount of `13,23,553 being the settlement of his death benefits and it was granted only for that purpose. In fact, Ext.P3 only certified the fact that the petitioner is also one of the legal heirs of the deceased Sunil Raj, but it did not carry and in fact, could not carry, any certification regarding dependancy. A proceeding for the grant of succession certificate is summary in nature and no rights of parties are finally decided in any such proceedings. The term 'heir' means one who on the death of another becomes entitled by operation of law of inheritance to succeed to the deceased person's estate and term 'heirship' means the state or condition of an heir. The term 'dependency' for the purpose of employment assistance scheme is related to the applicant's reliance on the deceased employee for maintenance and support at the relevant point of time. Therefore, being a legal heir of a person who died in harness by itself would not make him/her a dependent of the said

¶44

W.P.(C).19921/13

¶45

¶46

deceased employee. In the decision in M.G.B Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarthi Singh [2013 (3) KLT SN 104 (C.No.108) SC] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere death of a government employee in harness did not entitle the family to claim employment. Going by the said decision, the competent authority has to be examined with reference to the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and only if it is satisfied that without providing employment, the family would not be able to meet the crisis occasioned on the death of the employee that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family who was depending on the said employee. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that appointment under dying-in-harness cannot be recognised as a method of appointment. The purpose of the scheme is to provide succour to the family concerned to tide over the immediate crisis on account of the death of the bread winner of the family. Merely because of the inclusion of his name in Ext.P3 and his being a sibling of the deceased employee the petitioner cannot claim that he was a dependant of Sunil

¶47

W.P.(C).19921/13

¶48

¶49

Raj for the purpose of getting employment under the dying-in-harness scheme. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondents have arrived at the finding that he is not a dependant of late Sunil Raj without conducting a proper enquiry. Admittedly, the petitioner is aged 32 years and he is an able bodied person. At the time of death of Sri.Sunil Raj the petitioner was aged 30 years. It cannot be comprehended that such a sibling, even if unemployed, was leading the life of parasite and in the absence of positive proof of dependency he cannot be treated as a dependant for the purpose of employment assistance scheme especially when the deceased employee is survived by the widow. I am of the considered view that treating such a sibling as a dependant would go against the aim sought to be achieved by providing compassionate appointment and will reduce it as a method of appointment sans a process of selection. In the statement filed on behalf of the respondent it is stated that going by L.I.C of India Recruitment of (Class III & Class IV) Staff Instructions, 1993 only the spouse, son or unmarried daughter can claim appointment on the basis

¶50

W.P.(C).19921/13

¶51

¶52

of compassion. It is also to be noted that the consent allegedly given by the widow of Sunil Raj was not acted upon and in fact, the petitioner and others were required to produce succession certificate and consequently, Ext.P3 succession certificate was produced for obtaining the terminal benefits by the mother of the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that even as per Ext.P3 the widow of Sunil Raj is one of the legal heirs and in her case the fact that she was a dependent of the deceased employee was indisputable as the petitioner did not have a case that she is employed. In the circumstances, the widow of Sunil Raj is a necessary party to this writ petition and she was not arrayed as a party to this writ petition and hence, it is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. In this case, admittedly the petitioner has not filed any application for appointment under the compassionate appointment though he is a major and aged 32 years. In view of the indisputable position thus obtained as regards the petitioner I am of the view that the decision of the respondent to deny compassionate appointment to the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal warranting interference. I

¶53

W.P.(C).19921/13

¶54

¶55

find no merit in the writ petition and it is liable to fail. Accordingly,

¶56

the writ petition is dismissed.

¶57

Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)

spc/

W.P.(C).19921/13

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶62

JUDGMENT

¶63

September, 2010

¶64

W.P.(C).19921/13 10

Subin Raj v. Manager, LIC of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subin Raj v. Manager, LIC of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager, St.Thomas U.P.School Vs Sri.S.Shajahan

Manu Vs State of Kerala

Bibitha G. Vs State of Kerala

Geetha.v Vs Niveditha P.Haran

S.Manoj Vs the Kerala State Sports Council

K.S.Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala and Others