IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 3RD BHADRA, 1944
WA NO. 997 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 21598/2017 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER:
VANAJA
W/O.LATE BHASKARAN @ RAJAN, CHIRUKANDATH
HOUSE,KARAMUKKU VILLAGE, KANDASSAMKADAVU,
THRISSUR DIST- 680 613.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.PADMARAJ
SRI.P.J.ANTONY JOSEPH MARIADAS
SRI.R.AJITH KUMAR V.K.EDOM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION:
1 GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, PIN - 680 101.
2 GOVERNING BODY
GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN,PIN - 680 101.
3 THE DIRECTOR
STATE AUDIT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY ADV SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS
BY SRI.BINOY CHANDRAN, G.P.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.08.2022, ALONG WITH WA.1040/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA Nos. 997 & 1040 of 2018
:2:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 3RD BHADRA, 1944
WA NO. 1040 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 8984/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER:
REMYA RAJ
D/O.LATE C.B.BHASKARAN,CHIRUKANDATH
HOUSE,KANDASSAMKADAVU,TRISSUR DIST-680613.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.PADMARAJ
SRI.P.J.ANTONY JOSEPH MARIADAS
SRI.R.AJITH KUMAR V.K.EDOM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION:
1 GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR,PIN-680101.
2 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER
GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM BOARD,GURUVAYOOR,PIN-680101.
3 THE ADMINISTRATOR
GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING
COMMITTEE,GURUVAYOOR,PIN-680101.
4 THE SENIOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR
LOCAL FUND AUDIT,GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM
AUDIT,GURUVAYOOR,PIN-680101.
BY ADV SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.08.2022,
ALONG WITH WA.997/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA Nos. 997 & 1040 of 2018
:3:
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ
------------------------------------------------------------------
WA Nos. 997 & 1040 of 2018
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of August, 2022
JUDGMENT
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar. J.
As both these writ appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 6.2.2018 of the learned single Judge in WP(C)No.8984 of 2016 and WP(C)No.21598 of 2017 they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these writ appeals are as follows:-
The petitioner in WP(C)No.8984 of 2016 is the daughter and the petitioner in WP(C)No.21598 of 2017, the widow, of late C.B.Rajan who was an employee under the services of the Guruvayur Devaswom till his demise on 4.7.2014 while he was on duty as a Second Grade Overseer (Electrical). Immediately after his death, and pursuant to a complaint received by the Devaswom based on an obituary published in the local media about the death of the employee, an enquiry was conducted at the instance of the Guruvayur Devaswom to ascertain the true identity of the employee WA Nos. 997 & 1040 of 2018 :4: who had worked under the Devaswom in the name of C.B.Bhaskaran. The enquiry revealed that although the employee that was in the services of the Devaswom was late C.B.Rajan, he had obtained the employment under the Devaswom in the name of his younger brother C.B.Bhaskaran and had continued in the services of the Guruvayur Devaswom in that name till his death on 4.7.2014. Acting on the said information, and during the pendency of these proceedings, recovery notices were issued to the widow of late C.B.Rajan seeking a recovery of the amounts already paid to C.B.Rajan who, according to the Devaswom, had obtained the employment by fraudulent means. The petitioner in WP(C)8984 of 2016 is the daughter of late C.B.Rajan and in her writ petition the claim was essentially for a direction to the Board to consider her case for appointment on compassionate basis under the dying in harness scheme prevailing in the Board. It is significant that in the application preferred by the said person before the Board she ventured to claim that she was the daughter of 'C.B.Bhaskaran', which was the name shown in the service records of the Devaswom Board in relation to the late employee C.B.Rajan.
3. The learned single Judge who considered the writ petitions found prima facie that the emoluments drawn by late C.B.Rajan while he was in the services of the Devaswom Board could not be recovered from him or his family, and further that the retirement benefits due to him ought normally to have been WA Nos. 997 & 1040 of 2018 :5: disbursed to him on his death, in the absence of any proceedings initiated by the Devaswom against the employee during his life time/during the period of his employment. However, relying on the decision in R.Viswanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala [(2004) 2 SCC 105], Rita Mishra v. Director, Primary Education Bihar [AIR 1988 Patna 226], Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal [(2013) 9 SCC 363] and Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Bajrangi Rabidas [(2014) 13 SCC 681] the learned judge found that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, that raised reasonable suspicion in the mind as to commission of fraud by the deceased employee, the above benefits, including the benefit of compassionate appointment to his daughter, could not be granted. The writ petitions were accordingly dismissed by the learned single Judge.
4. Before us, it is the submission of Sri.Padmaraj, the learned counsel for the appellant that while it may be a fact that late C.B.Rajan was under the services of the Board during his life time in the name of his brother, and that in the service records pertaining to C.B.Rajan maintained by the Board, he was referred to as C.B.Bhaskaran, the Board had never disputed that it was late C.B.Rjan who was the employee under its services. That being the admitted case, it is his submission that other than the mere allegation as regards fraudulent conduct on the part of late C.B.Rajan while obtaining employment under the Board, which allegation had not been established through any proceedings WA Nos. 997 & 1040 of 2018 :6: initiated against the said C.B.Rajan at any time when he was in the employment of the Board, his entitlement to salary and other emoluments as also the retirement benefits that became due on his death, could not be withheld by the Board. As regards the claim of the daughter, who is the appellant in WA No.1040 of 2018, it is his contention that in as much as it is not in dispute that the said appellant is in fact the daughter of late C.B.Rajan, her claim for consideration for compassionate appointment also could not have been disallowed by the learned single Judge.
5. Per contra, it is the submission of Sri.Vipindas, the learned standing counsel for the respondent Board that the learned single Judge had rightly denied the relief to the writ petitioner taking note of the fraudulent conduct on the part of the deceased employee at the time of obtaining employment under the Board. He justifies the findings of the learned singe Judge for the reasons stated in the impugned judgment, more so because, according to him, the fraudulent conduct was unearthed only after the death of the employee.
6. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in WA No.997 of 2018 that in the absence of any proceedings that established the alleged fraudulent conduct on the part of the employee at any time when he was in the services of the Board, it WA Nos. 997 & 1040 of 2018 :7: was not open to the Board to subsequently deny the benefits of the said service rendered by the employee, on the ground that subsequent to his death prejudicial material has been unearthed by the Board. We also find that the Board does not deny the fact that it was the late C.B.Rajan who was in the services of the Board, and who had worked there as Second Grade Overseer (Electrical) till the date of his death on 4.7.2014. Under such circumstances, we feel that the Board is not justified in either recovering the amounts paid to the deceased employee by way of salary and other emoluments, or in refusing to pay his family the retirement benefits that were due to him for the past service rendered by him. We, therefore, set aside the findings of the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment to that extent and direct the Board to disburse the retirement benefits due to the appellant in WA No.997 of 2018 within three months of the appellant producing the documents necessary to establish her status as the widow of late C.B.Rajan.
7. As regards WA No.1040 of 2018 preferred at the instance of the daughter of the deceased employee, we are in agreement with the finding of the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment that the daughter of an employee who died in service cannot maintain a claim for compassionate appointment when the Board had obtained reliable evidence that pointed to fraudulent conduct of the employee while he was alive and in service. We also find that, at any rate, the appellants claim for WA Nos. 997 & 1040 of 2018 :8: compassionate appointment was by showing her status as the daughter of C.B.Bhaskaran the name by which her father was shown in the service records of the Board. In our view, she cannot be permitted to obtain any benefit through improper means, bordering on dishonesty. We therefore dismiss WA No.1040 of 2018.
Resultantly, WA No.997 of 2018 is allowed and WA No.1040 of 2018 is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JUDGE dlk 25.8.2022