Allowed

Divya Krishnan v. the Food Corporation of India

Kerala HC22 Jan 2021WP(C)/4901/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Food Corporation of India's order rejecting a widow's application for a compassionate appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Scheme. The Court held the rejection was arbitrary because the Authority disregarded previous judicial directions, failed to properly apply DoPT grading guidelines, and did not accept evidence that the father's declared income came from a sold pr

What did the court decide?

Ext.P12 order set aside; FCI directed to reconsider petitioner's representation within one month, adhere to DoPT guidelines, and appoint if petitioner qualifies under Grade B.

Divya Krishnan Vs the Food Corporation of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 2ND MAGHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.4901 OF 2020(K)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DIVYA KRISHNAN AGED 36 YEARS D/O. LATE S.RADHAKRISHNAN, PADMALAYAM, VAZHOOR P.O., KODUNGOOR, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.PRANOY K.KOTTARAM SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI HEADQUARTERS, 16-20 BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶11

2 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE (SOUTH), NO.3 HADDOWS ROAD, CHENNAI-600006.

¶12

3 DY.GENERAL MANAGER (PER)/CPIO), FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE (SOUTH), NO.3, HADDOWS ROAD, CHENNAI.

¶13

4 THE GENERAL MANAGER FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶14

R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.ABDUL MAJEED

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.4901 OF 2020 2

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner's father, Sri.S.Radhakrishnan,

¶19

died while serving the Food Corporation of India (FCI for short) on 09.12.2010 and his family was awarded a meagre family pension.

¶20

The petitioner, being the younger

¶21

daughter, preferred Ext.P1 application for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Scheme, applicable to the FCI, on 14.10.2011, but this was rejected through Exts.P4 and P5 by saying that the family cannot be seen to be penury, so as to be eligible for being supported under the Scheme.

¶22

The petitioner asserts that the reasons

¶23

recorded in Exts.P4 and P5 are that Sri.S.Radhakrishnan, while in service, had declared that he was getting Rs.30,000/- as annual income from 85 cents of property owned by him; but that since this property had been sold during his

¶24

life time and since the annual income of the family had been greatly attenuated thereafter, she obtained Ext.P6 Income Certificate from the Tahsildar, Changanacherry, showing the family's income to be only Rs.12,000/- leading to Ext.P7

¶25

representation dated 06.04.2017 being made,

¶26

WP(C).No.4901 OF 2020 3

¶27

followed by Ext.P7(a) reminder.

¶28

The petitioner says that since the FCI

¶29

did not take any action on these representations, she was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P(C) No. 18605/2018, which culminated in Ext.P8 judgment, wherein, the FCI was directed to consider the new application of the petitioner as per law.

¶30

The petitioner added that, in spite of the above, Ext.P9 order was issued by the FCI rejecting the application again saying that her family is not in penury and that they have landed property belonging to Sri.S.Radhakrishnan, on which he had already declared to be obtaining Rs.30,000/- per annum as income. She says that the said order further says that, since on a comparative evaluation, her family was found to be less penurious than other deserving candidates and since the new Income Certificate, namely Ext.P6, cannot be looked into, her claim does not deserve to be reviewed or reconsidered.

¶31

The petitioner says that, she therefore,

¶32

had no other option but to approach this Court again by filing W.P(C) No.16004/2019, which ended

¶33

WP(C).No.4901 OF 2020 4

¶34

in Ext.P10 judgment, whereby, all the contentions

¶35

of the FCI were rejected and the petitioner was permitted to make a fresh representation explaining the present status of the immovable property earlier declared by her father and the FCI was directed to consider the same in the light of the Ext.P6 Income Certificate.

¶36

therefore, preferred Ext.P11 representation, appending to it all relevant documents, including the Sale Agreement entered into by her father with his brother Sri.S.Ramesh to sell him the property, wherein it has been acknowledged that Rs.17 Lakhs had been received by the former for the purpose of meeting the expenses of his elder daughter and further explaining that, since Sri.S.Radhakrishnan died thereafter, no sale deed had been executed,

¶37

though Sri.S.Ramesh took possession of the

¶38

property with effect from 26.04.2010.

¶39

The petitioner says that since Ext.P11

¶40

application shows that she is imminently eligible for being appointed under the Dying-in -Harness

¶41

Scheme, she was hopeful of being granted

¶42

affirmative orders; but that the Executive

¶43

WP(C).No.4901 OF 2020 5

¶44

Director of the FCI has again issued Ext.P12 order, wherein again, it has been said that the petitioner's family's penury is less in comparison to other candidates and that since only 5% of the

¶45

vacancies are earmarked for appointments under the scheme, she cannot be granted the said benefit. She says that along with the afore reason, it is also stated in Ext.P12 that even though the petitioner has informed the FCI about the

¶46

conveyance of the property, nothing is mentioned therein about the manner in which Rs.17 Lakhs,

¶47

which is the sale consideration, has been utilised by the family.

¶48

The petitioner contends that Ext.P12 is

¶49

egregiously improper and is in complete disregard to the directions in Ext.10 judgment; and therefore, prays that same be set aside.

¶50

I have heard Shri.Grashious Kuriakose, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Shri.Pranoy K.Kottaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri.T.P.M.Ibrahim Khan, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Anila Aneesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents - FCI.

¶51

In answer to the afore submissions of the

¶52

WP(C).No.4901 OF 2020 6

¶53

petitioner, as argued by her learned Senior Counsel - Shri.Grashious Kuriakose, the learned Senior Counsel for the FCI-Shri. T.P.M.Ibrahim Khan, submitted that two counter affidavits have been filed on record, in which the reasons for issuing Ext.P12 have been clearly enumerated. Sri.T.P.M.Ibrahim Khan submitted that the petitioner's penury was considered and assessed by the Committee in the light of the criteria fixed by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India, dated 16.01.2013 and she has been graded as “B+”; while only persons in “Grade B” have been offered employment under the Compassionate Scheme. He added that it is, therefore, that in Ext.P12 she has been notified that her penury was comparatively lesser than the other candidates and further that her candidature had been rejected because she was unable to inform the FCI how the sale consideration of Rs.17 Lakhs, admitted in the sale agreement, has been dealt with by the family. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶54

I have evaluated the rival submissions

¶55

WP(C).No.4901 OF 2020 7

¶56

and have also gone through the voluminous documents available on record.

¶57

travails of a young lady who is aspiring to obtain an employment under the Dying-in-Harness Scheme of the FCI, consequent to the unfortunate death of her father on 09.12.2010.

¶58

petitioner's application was made on 14.10.2011, which is admittedly within time; but was rejected through Exts.P4 and P5 solely saying that the family was not in penury compared to other candidates. This made the petitioner to obtain Ext.P6 certificate showing that the income of the family per annum is only Rs.12,000/- and preferred Ext.P7 representation, which was directed to be disposed of by this Court through Ext.P8 judgment. However, the FCI again rejected it through Ext.P9

¶59

restating that the petitioner’s family is

¶60

monetarily better of the other candidates and that Ext.P6 Income Certificate cannot be looked into,

¶61

further adding that her father had already declared a landed property of 85 cents in his name, where from, he was obtaining Rs.30,000/- as

¶62

WP(C).No.4901 OF 2020 8

¶63

income.

¶64

When this order was challenged before this Court, Ext. P10 judgment was delivered, virtually chastising the FCI for their refusal to even advert to Ext.P6 Income Certificate and the

¶65

petitioner was allowed to make a fresh representation explaining how the property

¶66

declared by her father had been dealt with during his life time.

¶67

The petitioner preferred Ext.P11

¶68

representation, along with all documents, to show

¶69

that the property in question had already been sold to Sri.S.Ramesh during the lifetime of her

¶70

father and that Rs.17 Lakhs, which had been

¶71

obtained by him earlier, was spent for the

¶72

marriage of his elder daughter. The petitioner

¶73

also explained that sale deed has not been

¶74

executed, because her father died in the meanwhile and that Shri.S.Ramesh took possession of the same

¶75

on the strength of the sale agreement dated 26.04.2010.

¶76

It must be borne in mind that it is in

¶77

the back drop of the afore specific information

¶78

given by the petitioner that Ext.P12 order has

¶79

WP(C).No.4901 OF 2020 9

¶80

been issued by the FCI - pertinently, by the same officer who had issued Ext.P9 order - ingeminating that the petitioner's family is not as penurious as the other candidates and that they have not

¶81

disclosed what they did with the sale consideration of Rs.17 Lakhs.

¶82

I have recorded the afore facts in some

¶83

detail only to indicate the rather lackadaisical manner in which the FCI has dealt with the

¶84

directions of this Court. Even though the petitioner had admittedly, produced all documents along with Ext.P11 representation to show that the property, which had been declared by her father during his life time, had been sold even before he died and that the money which he obtained had been used for the purpose of the wedding of his elder daughter, the FCI has chosen to turn a proverbial nelson's eye to all this and to merely say that the petitioner has not disclosed how the amount of Rs.17 Lakhs had been dealt with by her family after the death of Sri.S.Radhakrishnan.

¶85

In addition to this, the FCI maintains that the petitioner's family is comparatively less penurious to other candidates and that she has

¶86

WP(C).No.4901 OF 2020 10

¶87

been graded “B+” under the guidelines of the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, dated 16.01.2013. However, Sri.Grashious Kuriakose, the learned Senior Counsel, points out that the afore grading has been made in complete error because, going by Ext.R4(m), grade ‘B’ can be assigned only in the case of a “ family of two members (mother and son) having own house or one of the dependents working in a private firm with reasonably good income or son not having any liability ”(sic). He submitted that his client can never be categorized under this head for the obvious reason that the family does not have a son and that she could have been included under category “B” alone, which inter alia , defines the family to include the “widow and/or unmarried daughter, daughter married after the death of the employee, having no regular employment/income and residing in own/rented house” (sic).

¶88

The learned Senior Counsel thus submits

¶89

that had in the criteria prescribed by the Department of Personnel and Training been properly applied by the FCI, it would be apodictic that the petitioner could have been only graded as “B” and

¶90

WP(C).No.4901 OF 2020 11

¶91

not as “B+” thereunder.

¶92

The afore submission of Sri.Grashious Kuriakose has great force because, as per the averments of the FCI in their additional counter affidavit dated 17.12.2020, they say that all those candidates who have been graded “B” have been appointed, while those who were graded “B+”, “B++” and “A” were communicated that they were not eligible to the benefits under the scheme. Obviously, going by these averments, had the petitioner been graded as “B”, then it is a virtual confession that she would have been entitled to be appointed, even going by the Department of Personnel and Training guidelines dated 16.01.2013.

¶93

I am afraid that none of these aspects have been considered by the Authority of the FCI while issuing Ext.P12; and justifiably, therefore, the said order comes across as one that has been issued casually and without proper thought.

¶94

The cause against Ext.P12 becomes more fortified when one examines the directions in Ext.P10 judgment, which had clearly indicated about the property of Shri.S.Radhakrishnan and the

¶95

WP(C).No.4901 OF 2020 12

¶96

manner in which its sale consideration had to be dealt with, but the order still says that Ext.P11 representation does not explain how Rs.17 Lakhs, received by Shri.S.Radhakrishnan, had been spent.

¶97

I can only, therefore, find Ext.P12 to be in egregious disregard to the directions in Ext.P10 judgment. Obviously, for this reason, I

¶98

cannot find favour with Ext.P12 and am certain that it deserves to be set aside.

¶99

Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and Ext.P12 order of the FCI is set aside; with a resultant direction to the competent Authority of the FCI to reconsider Ext.P11 representation of the petitioner, carefully adverting to the guidelines of the Department of Personnel and Training dated 16.01.2013 and adhering to the observations of this Court in this judgment and in Ext.P10, thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶100

I make it clear that while completing the

¶101

afore exercise, the competent Authority of the FCI shall properly assess the petitioner’s penury and

¶102

WP(C).No.4901 OF 2020 13

¶103

if she is found to be in grade ‘B’, then necessary

¶104

orders appointing her will have to be issued, unless it is able to conclude validly that the amount of Rs.17 Lakhs is still retained with the family or that it has been spent contrary to the manner which the petitioner has explained in her representation.

¶105

Sd/-

¶106

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶107

JUDGE

¶108

MC/25.1.2021

¶109

WP(C).No.4901 OF 2020 14

¶110

APPENDIX

¶111

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶112

EXHIBIT P1	ATRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT FOR DEPENDENT OF DECEASED EMPLOYEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 14.10.2011.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID VIP REFERENCE ISSUED FROM DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH ZONAL OFFICE, CHENNAI DATED 25.1.2012.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF SAID LETTER NO.RPI/32(4)/2013 ADDRESED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 20.1.2014.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE RTI INFORMATION WITH ANNEXURE OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER FROM ZONAL OFFICE (SOUTH) DATED 20.7.2016.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE VIP REFERENCE LETTER LR.NO.RPI/32(3)/2017 ISSUED BY THE DY. GENERAL MANAGER, ZONAL OFFICE (SOUTH) DATED 14.3.2017.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER'S FAMILY INCOME DATED 31.12.2016.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 6.4.2017.
EXHIBIT P7(A)	A TRUE COPY OF THE REMAINDER OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 11.12.2017.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 15.10.2018 IN WP(C) NO.18605/2018.
EXHIBIT P9	A RUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ZONAL OFFICE (SOUTH), DATED 7.2.2019 TOGETHER WITH CORRIGENDUM DATED 14.2.2019.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.11.2019 BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WP(C) 16004/2019.
EXHIBIT P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS DATED

¶113

WP(C).No.4901 OF 2020 15

¶114

	11.12.2019 WITH ALL ENCOSURES, AS DIRECTED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN ITS ORDER DATED 5.11.2019.
EXHIBIT P12	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ZONAL OFFICE (SOUTH) DATED 20.1.2020 REJECTING THE APPLICATION BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P13	ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 1.4.2019 REJECTING THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RTI ACT.
EXHIBIT P14	ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 28.6.2019 DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RTI ACT.
EXHIBIT P15 RESPONDENT'S/S EX	A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDER RIT FROM THE REGIONAL OFFICE TRIVANDRUM, DATED 29.12.2015. HIBITS:
EXHIBIT R4(A)	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. ESTT/1(3)/2011 DATED 02/11/2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R4(B)	A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO. 14014/02/2012-ESTT.(D) DATED 16/01/2013 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, NEW DELHI.
EXHIBIT R4(C)	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. RPI/32(4)/2013/VOL.IV DATED 18/10/2016 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R4(D)	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1(6)/15/SZ/ZE DATED 03/03/2017 ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER DATED 13/02/2017 ADDRESSED TO THE PRIVATE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTER FOR CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION.
EXHIBIT R4(E)	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. RPI/32(3)/2017 DATED 14/03/2017 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R4(F)	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. EP 1(1)/95 VOL.X/2013 DATED 08/01/2014 ISSUED BY THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE FCI.
EXHIBIT R4(G)	A TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME CERTIFICATE NO.2044/2014/C1/K.DIS DATED 06/02/2014 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, CHANGANACHERY.

¶115

WP(C).No.4901 OF 2020 16

¶116

EXHIBIT R4(H)	A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OF THE DECEASED EMPLOYEES.
EXHIBIT R4(I)	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT DATED 15/02/2014.
EXHIBIT R4(J)	THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT DATED 24/07/2014.
EXHIBIT R4(K)	THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT NO.42903 DATED 10/12/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R4(L)	THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO. B1- 12204/2019(08) DATED 25/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT R4(M)	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT DATED 24/07/2014.

Divya Krishnan v. the Food Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divya Krishnan v. the Food Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayswarya P.A. Vs Ajayan

Saritha E.K. Vs State of Kerala

Balakrishnan Nambiar Vs the State of Kerala

C.C.Mini Vs the State of Kerala

P.K. Rajendran Nair Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

Sangeetha R Nair Vs State of Kerala