IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 25372 of 2010(V) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JIJA.P.T,W/O.THOMAS.V.J,'WIN VILLA', PUNCHAKKAD,PAYYANNUR PO,PIN 670 307, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE PANCHAYAT DEPUTY DIRECTOR,KANNUR - 670 001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR,TALIPARAMBA - 670 101. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PAYYANNUR - 670 307. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ROSE MICHAEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.25372/2010 V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT TOGETHER WITH CONNECTED RECORDS AND PAPERS AND COVERING LETTER DTD. 20/01/2009. P2: COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.14/2010 DTD. 12/04/2010. P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DTD. 10/05/2010. P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 18/11/2000. P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 2/06/2010. P7: COPY OF G.O.(P) 12/99 DTD. 24/05/1999. P8: COPY OF G.O.(P) 24/99 DTD. 18/11/1999. P9: COPY OF CIRCULAR DTD. 19/03/2001. P10: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 9/05/2008. P11: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 27/05/2008. P12: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 7/06/2008. P13: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 16/06/2008. P14: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 26/06/2008. P15: COPY OF U.O.NOTE DTD. 7/07/2008. P16: COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DTD. 4/10/2008. P17: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PASSAGES OF THE REPORT FURNISHED BY LAW DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS BY THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT IN THE CASE OF SMT. MAYA RANI. P18: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 6/01/2001. P19: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 1/04/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 25372 OF 2010-V ------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's mother died-in-harness while working as Secretary of Kunhimangalam Grama Panchayat in Kannur District, on 26-08-2008. The petitioner claimed that she was dependent on the deceased mother financially and was directly affected her death in all respects, applied for compassionate appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme, as per Ext.P1. It is admitted that at the time when the application was submitted she was married to one Sri. Thomas V.J. who was working as a Last Grade employee in the General Education Department. The marriage was on 23-06-2002, about 6 years prior to death of mother. According to the petitioner the family of her husband consisted of his parents and the petitioner's husband was looking after them and meeting their personal expenses. It is further stated that his brother was also unemployed and he was providing financial assistance also to two married sisters. According to the petitioner, under the above W.P.(c) No.25372/2010 -2- mentioned circumstances, she was depending upon income of her deceased mother from employment and that the death of mother had adversely affected her income and financial security. The financial crisis arising out of the death is continuing, according to the petitioner. This writ petition was filed when the 3rd respondent had refused to issue 'dependency certificate' for obtaining job under the compassionate employment scheme. It is contended that the Village officer (4th respondent) had submitted an enquiry report as per Ext.P4 regarding the financial position. But the 3rd respondent had issued Ext.P5 letter to the Deputy Director of Panchayats and also issued Ext.P6 to the petitioner rejecting the application for 'dependency certificate'. The petitioner was challenging Exts.P5 and P6 in this writ petition. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, acting upon the basis of Ext.P5, the Government had rejected the application for compassionate employment, as per Ext.P19. Through an amendment the petitioner is also challenging Ext.P19. W.P.(c) No.25372/2010 -3- 3. Contention of the petitioner is that, in the enquiry report of the village officer it is specifically stated that even though the petitioner was married at the time of death of her mother, she was not residing with her husband. But she was living with the mother providing care and protection since the mother was a cancer patient. It is also mentioned that the enquiry revealed that the petitioner was depending on the mother. The enquiry report further reveals that during that time the husband of the petitioner was employed in State Government service as a Class-IV employee at Thrissur. It is contended that the 3rd respondent without taking note of the factual aspects in the report had denied 'dependency certificate' observing that the petitioner was married and that she was the wife of a Government employee. Petitioner also contended that the rejection of the application for compassionate employment on the basis of report submitted by the Deputy Tahsildar in view of Ext.P5 and assigning the reason of non-production of 'dependency certificate' is highly illegal and unsustainable. W.P.(c) No.25372/2010 -4- 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it is stated that the application submitted by the petitioner for employment under the compassionate scheme was not accompanied with the certificate as prescribed in Para 2 of G.O (P) No.14/2010/P&ARD dated 12-04-2010, which insists for production of certificate from the concerned Tahsildar showing that married daughter/son of the deceased Government employee is dependent on the deceased employee, even after by his/her marriage. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent through letter dated 18-11- 2009 had informed that the petitioner was living with her mother at the time of death of her mother and the petitioner was married. 5. Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj learned counsel for the petitioner placed much reliance on Ext.P17 guidelines issued by the Government with respect to compassionate appointment under the scheme. Referring to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Rev. Mother, Delphine Mary V. State of Kerala (2002 (1) KLT 137) it is contended that a married son or a married daughter is also W.P.(c) No.25372/2010 -5- entitled to get the benefit of the Compassionate Employment Scheme, provided they can show that inspite of the marriage, he/she was a dependent on the deceased and could not tide over the sudden crisis due to death of the breadwinner of the family. It is argued that the real factual aspects revealed from the enquiry report of the 4th respondent (Ext.P4) was not considered. The contention is that while issuing Exts.P5 and P6 the 3rd respondents had omitted to take the enquiry report in its real perspective. On the other hand the 3rd respondent was carried away by the mere fact that the petitioner was married and his husband was employed. Hence he is assailing the stand taken by the 3rd respondent in issuing Ext.P5 and also assailing the consequential order Ext.P19 issued by the 1st respondent. 6. While considering the issue involved, I am of the view that this Court cannot find fault with the rejection of the application. As evident from Ext.P19, it is not disputed that any application for appointment under the compassionate scheme with respect to a married son or a W.P.(c) No.25372/2010 -6- married daughter need be accompanied by a 'dependency certificate' as contemplated under para 2 of G.O (P) No.14/2010/P&ARD dated 12-04-2010. Since the application in this case was not accompanied by such a certificate the Government was justified in rejecting the application. 7. Next question arises for consideration is as to whether Exts. P5 and P6 letters issued by the 3rd respondent suffers from any infirmity. Going by the dictum in Rev. Delphine Mary's case (cited supra) the mere fact that either the daughter or the son got married does not mean that he/she has lost his claim for appointment under the scheme, which is intended to give some assistance to the dependants of the deceased. The object of those provisions would be defeated if the claim of a married son or daughter is rejected, if they are otherwise dependant on the deceased. This court held that a more reasonable approach to consider entitlement of the married son or daughter should be there, provided they can show that in spite of the marriage he/she was a dependent on the deceased and could not tide over the sudden crisis due to death of the W.P.(c) No.25372/2010 -7- breadwinner of the family. In the case at hand the Village officer reported that the petitioner was residing with the deceased mother taking care of her who was ailing from cancer. The report also contains a sentence that the petitioner was living under dependency of the mother. But at the same time it was also reported that the petitioner was married to a person who is Class-IV employee in Government service. Exhibit-P4 submitted by the Village officer cannot be taken as a conclusive certificate regarding the eligibility. It is pertinent to note that the competent authority to issue such certificate is the Tahsildar. Tahsildar called for the report, only to evaluate the factual situation. On considering such report the Tahsildar felt that petitioner is not entitled to get a certificate under the relevant Government order to the extent of holding that the petitioner was totally depending on the deceased for her livelihood or that inspite of the marriage to a Government employee she was solely depending on the salary of the deceased. In other words there is nothing to show that the petitioner could not tide over the sudden crisis due to the W.P.(c) No.25372/2010 -8- death of her mother. It is on the basis of the subjective satisfaction regarding the factual aspects prevailing that the Tahsildar had refused to issue the dependency certificate. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contented that there was no material available to take a different version against the enquiry report of the Village officer. But I am not in a position to agree with the contention that the Tahsildar had taken a different version than the enquiry report. The enquiry report infact reveled the factual situation. On evaluation and appraisal by the Tahsildar it was felt that such situation does not warrant issuance of a dependency certificate, because there was no convincing material to held that the petitioner was solely dependent on the deceased for her livelihood and that she is not in possession to tide over the sudden crises due to death of the mother. A proportionate income derived from her mother out of employment might have been contribute to the needs of the petitioner. But that itself is not sufficient to hold that the petitioner was a dependent and was solely relying on W.P.(c) No.25372/2010 -9- the income of the mother for her livelihood and that the mother was the bread winner of the family of the petitioner. Nor it is sufficient to held that the petitioner could not tide over the situation arising out the sudden crisis due to death of the deceased mother. 9. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I find no material to hold that the subjective satisfaction arrived by the Tahsildar on the facts of th case at hand is in any manner erroneous or perverse. In my considered opinion no circumstances exist warranting interference on the decision taken by the Tahsildar. Therefore the writ petition deserves no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. AMG True copy P.A to Judge