Allowed

Ramina C., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Dec 2022WP(C)/19167/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, daughter of a deceased permanent labourer with low family income, challenged rejection of her application for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. Court quashed rejection citing marriage alone as insufficient bar to dependency.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P9 quashed; respondent directed to reconsider application and take fresh decision within one month after enquiry.

Ramina C., Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶5

1944

¶6

WP(C) NO. 19167 OF 2022

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

RAMINA C., AGED 32 YEARS D/O. LATE OMANA C, CHERUKUNNOTH HOUSE, KANKOL P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670307. BY ADV R.K.MURALEEDHARAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670002. 3 THE SENIOR AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, ( ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE), STATE SEED FARM, KANKOL P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670307. 4 THE TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670307.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

GP AMMINIKUTTY K

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

¶15

14.10.2022, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C) No.19167 of 2022

¶17

-2-

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 19^th day of December, 2022

¶20

The petitioner's mother, Omana, died on

¶21

12.11.2021 while working as a permanent labourer

¶22

under the third respondent. Omana's family consisted of her husband K.Damodaran and two daughters. As Damodaran is unemployed, the family was fully dependent on Omana's income. Although petitioner is married, her husband Lathish is not having any permanent job and occasionally works as a coolie labourer. The petitioner therefore

¶23

submitted Ext.P4 application seeking appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. The application was returned with a direction to produce dependency certificate from the Tahsildar and the income certificate of petitioner's husband. Accordingly, Ext.P7 certificate issued by the Village Officer, Udinur was produced to

¶24

show that the annual family income of petitioner's husband is Rs.34,000/-. The

¶25

W.P.(C) No.19167 of 2022

¶26

-3-

¶27

petitioner also produced Ext.P6 certificate issued by the Village Officer, Kankol to prove that her annual family income is Rs.28,000/-. The application for issuance of dependency certificate was rejected by the 4^th respondent on the ground that, the petitioner had depended on her mother only till marriage, her husband being a coolie worker. Aggrieved, this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs;

¶28

“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any

¶29

other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Ext. P9 communication of the 4^th respondent dated 17.05.2022;

¶30

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 4th respondent to issue a certificate showing that the petitioner is dependent on her deceased mother for the purpose of applying under the compassionate employment scheme.”

¶31

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that refusal to issue dependency certificate on the sole ground that the

¶32

W.P.(C) No.19167 of 2022

¶33

-4-

¶34

petitioner is married, is patently illegal. It is

¶35

contended that dependency will change after marriage only if the husband has sufficient income. In the petitioner's case, her husband's income being only Rs.34,000/-, she contended to depend on her mother for financial support. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on

¶36

the Division Bench decision in Superintendent,

¶37

RMS and others v. Kavitha K.Francis [2013(3) KHC

¶38

327 (DB)] .

¶39

Learned Government Pleader contended

¶40

that compassionate appointment being an

¶41

exception, no aspirant can demand compassionate appointment as a right. Therefore, appointment on compassionate grounds can be made only on all the norms being fulfiled and the eligibility criteria being satisfied. As the petitioner is a married woman, she can no longer claim to be dependent on her mother. The fourth respondent had therefore rightly refused to issue dependency

¶42

W.P.(C) No.19167 of 2022

¶43

-5-

¶44

certificate.

¶45

The question arising for consideration is whether a daughter's claim for dependency can be rejected merely for reason of her marriage, even if the income of her husband is way below the prescribed income limit. This question has been succinctly answered by the Division Bench in

¶46

Superintendent, RMS and others (supra) , paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment being

¶47

relevant, is extracted hereunder;

¶48

“6. We have looked into the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment under the Central Government which is covered by the revised instructions, as learned Senior Panel Counsel for the establishment. The provision therein is for assistance to "dependent family member". For that purpose, insofar as it relates to a Government servant, as is involved in the nature of the litigation which we are now considering, "dependent family member" means (a) spouse; or (b) son (including adopted son); or (c) daughter (including adopted daughter); who was wholly dependent on the Government servant. In provided to us by the the event of the

¶49

W.P.(C) No.19167 of 2022

¶50

-6-

¶51

Government servant being unmarried, the siblings of the Government servant concerned would also fall within the scope of that term. A plain reading of the provisions of the Scheme shows that it does not envisage the daughter, ceasing to be dependent, by the operation of the Scheme, merely on account of the incident of her getting married.

¶52

7. In the ultimate analysis, what is required to be understood is as to whether the applicant was wholly dependent on the Government servant concerned. In the case in hand, the Tribunal has assimilated the entire materials on record and has come to the clear conclusion that the applicant, essentially a victim of impecunious circumstances, left with two daughters to be taken care of, dependent entirely on her parents for support. The homestead, where the deceased Mailman Francis and his wife were residing, has been sold off. His widow and daughter with the little ones are now living in a rented home even as disclosed by the representation made in 2010 by them and produced before the Tribunal by the establishment. Taking the entire facts into consideration, the Tribunal has, in our view rendered a verdict without breaking the law but rendering justice. The Tribunal essentially stated that the Rules have been

¶53

W.P.(C) No.19167 of 2022

¶54

-7-

¶55

followed by the establishment. In fact, it had not. We say so because, on the basis of the compassionate appointment scheme that now exists, it can never be said that the mere reason that a daughter of an employee dying in harness gets married does not take her away from the zone of consideration as a dependent family member. In this context, the reference made by the Tribunal to the precedents laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and by this Court is apposite, though the learned Senior Panel Counsel has rightly pointed out that the fact that it could have been a case where the daughter was unmarried at the time of making the application and later got married, in our view, makes no difference.”

¶56

It is to be noted that with the change in family structure, life style and social norms, a married woman may still continue to depend on her parents, if her husband does not have sufficient income earning capacity. As far as the case at hand is concerned, the consolidated annual income of the petitioner and her husband is only Rs.62,000/- which, under the present

¶57

W.P.(C) No.19167 of 2022

¶58

-8-

¶59

circumstances, is way below what is required for a person's sustenance. It cannot be assumed that a daughter's ties with her family will get completely severed on marriage. In my opinion, a welfare state cannot deny compassionate appointment to daughters merely for reason of their marriage. If the daughter is otherwise eligible and willing to sustain the family of the deceased that becomes a valid consideration.

¶60

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P9 is quashed and the 4^th respondent is directed to re-consider petitioner's application and take a fresh decision within one month, after conducting an enquiry through the Village Officer, Kankol.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

Scl/

W.P.(C) No.19167 of 2022

¶65

-9-

¶66

¶67

PETITION	ER EXHIB	ITS
Exhibit	P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE NO. K.DIS/G2 -13663/2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 03.03.2022.
Exhibit	P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO. 12/99/ P&ARD DATED 24.05.1999 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Exhibit	P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO. 14/2010 /P&ARD DATED 12.04.2010 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Exhibit	P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 06.04.2022 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. K. SF.02/2021DATED 04.05.2022 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME CERTIFICATE NO. 63792245 OF THE PETITIONER DATED 11.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, KANKOL
Exhibit	P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME CERTIFICATE NO. 65010231 OF THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND DATED 13.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, UDINUR
Exhibit	P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit	P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. G4/4288/2022/SR ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 17.05.2022
RESPONDE	NT ANNEX	URES
ANNEXURE	R4(a)	A TRUE COPY OF G.O. (P) NO.14/2010 P and A R D DATED 12.04.2010

Ramina C., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramina C., v. State of Kerala

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

Anandu.P.v Vs the Deputy Tahsildar

Mascom Steel (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Renewable Power Corporation of Kerala Ltd. (Rpckl)

Koyakutty P a Vs the Tahsildar, Kunnathunadu Taluk

Jomon C.V. Vs the Union of India

K. Snehalatha Vs Union of India

Reema v Vs Union of India