Anees A.K vs Food Corporation Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 1756 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

     MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 28TH POUSHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.4990 OF 2011(W)


PETITIONER:

               ANEES A.K.
               S/O. LATE M. ABDULLAKOYA, AGED 30 YEARS,, `ANEES
               MANZIL', LAJANATHU WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688 012.

               BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.

RESPONDENTS:

      1        FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
               16-20, BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI - 110 001,,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

      2        THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
               FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE (SOUTH),
               NO.3, HADDOWS ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 006.

      3        THE REGIONAL MANAGER
               FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE,,
               KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

      4        THE AREA MANAGER
               FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DISTRICT OFFICE,,
               ALAPPUZHA - 688 012.

      5        RARICHAN M.T.
               ASSISTANT GRADE-II (GENERAL),, FOOD CORPORATION OF
               INDIA, DISTRICT OFFICE,, ALAPPUZHA - 688 012.

               SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, SC, FCI
               SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE, SC, FCI

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD           ON
18.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.4990 OF 2011(W)

                                       2


                                   JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18th day of January 2021

The petitioner has approached this Court impugning

Exts.P8 and P14, as per which, his application for appointment

under the Dying-in-harness Scheme applicable to the first

respondent - Food Corporation of India, has been rejected

solely saying that the documents in support of his application

has been produced belatedly.

2. The petitioner asserts that the statements in Exts.P8

and P14 are wholly and egregiously improper, since he had

produced all the relevant documents within the time as had

been mandated. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Exts.P8

and P14 be set aside and the FCI be directed to reconsider his

application for compassionate appointment within a time

frame to be fixed by this Court.

3. In response to the submissions made on behalf of the

petitioner by his learned counsel - Sri.Elvin Peter P.J., the

learned standing counsel for the FCI, Sri.Jose Kuriakose,

submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed on record,

wherein, it has been explained that even though the

petitioner's father died on 28.06.2004, he had produced the WP(C).No.4990 OF 2011(W)

legal heir-ship certificate, as also the statement of immovable

property, only in mid 2010 and therefore, that the competent

Authority of the first respondent had no other option but to

reject the application of the petitioner through Ext.P8 and

P14.

4. Sri.Jose Kuriakose further pointed out that, as is

evident from Ext.P9, the legal heir-ship certificate was, in fact,

produced by the petitioner only after Ext.P8 order had been

issued rejecting his application and that through Ext.P11 this

has only been reiterated. He further submitted that, as is

evident from Ext.P10, the statement of immovable properties

has also been produced by the petitioner only on 17.09.2010

and therefore, that his clients were justified in having rejected

application as being belated.

5. Sri.Jose Kuriakose bolstered his arguments by saying

that it has been now well settled, through a catena of

judgments of this Court and that of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, that the option of appointment through a Dying-in-

harness Scheme is to protect the family from immediate and

severe financial crisis and that since more than six years has

been taken by the petitioner to produce the relevant WP(C).No.4990 OF 2011(W)

documents, it is clear that his family was not suffering from

any such crisis and therefore, that he is not entitled to be

considered for appointment under the said Scheme. He,

therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

6. I have examined the materials available on record and

have tested them against the submissions made on behalf of

the first respondent.

7. It is conceded that the petitioner's application for

appointment under the dying-in-harness was made within four

months after his father unfortunately died on 28.06.2004. On

receipt of the said application, the first respondent - FCI

issued Ext.P1 letter to him asking to produce certain

documents. Pertinently, neither a legal-heir ship certificate

nor statement of immovable property are listed therein.

8. Thereafter, through Ext.P2 letter dated 23.03.2005,

the FCI asked the petitioner to produce the legal heir-ship

certificate in support of his application. The petitioner

responded, by producing Ext.P4 - which is the legal heir ship

certificate in Malayalam, but apparently he was asked to

produce an English version of the same, since a decision on

his application had to be taken at Tamilnadu. The petitioner WP(C).No.4990 OF 2011(W)

asserts that he, therefore, applied for an English version of the

said certificate and that he had produced the same before the

respondent in July, 2005.

9. The petitioner then says that, however, since his

application was, thereafter, rejected through Ext.P8 dated

07.09.2010, saying that his legal heir-ship certificate and

statement of immovable property had not been furnished until

then, he produced a fresh one, namely Exts.P9 and P10 and

requested that the decision of the FCI in Ext.P8 be

reconsidered. He says that, however, Ext.P14 was thereafter

issued rejecting his application for the same reasons.

10. That being so said, as I have already indicated above,

it is clear that the petitioner was asked to produce his legal

heir ship certificate alone and not a statement of immovable

property through Ext.P2, which had been acceded to by him

by producing Ext.P4. It is only because the same was in

malayalam that the FCI appears to have not accepted the

same. The petitioner, of course, says that he produced English

version in July 2005 but since the same has not been placed on

record, this Court is not in a position to affirmatively hold one

way or the other about the same.

WP(C).No.4990 OF 2011(W)

11. Even that being so, the fact remains that the

petitioner's application had been fully supported by Ext.P4

legal heir ship certificate as early as in 2005, I cannot,

therefore, find any delay to have been occasioned on the side

of the petitioner, particularly when, through Ext.P2, he was

not asked to produce any statement of immovable property.

This appears to have been requisitioned by the respondents

only through Ext.P8, wherein, it has been mentioned that

neither the legal heir-ship certificate nor the statement of

immovable property has been produced by him.

12. I, therefore, asked Sri.Jose Kuriakose as to whether

any document has been placed on record to show that the

petitioner had ever been directed to produce the certificate of

immovable property prior to Ext.P8. He conceded that there

is no such written document but that the respondents had

orally asked him to do so. Obviously, therefore, I cannot

attach credence to this and I will be justified in proceeding by

the documents available on record.

13. From the materials available, it is evident that the

petitioner was asked to produce the statement of immovable

property for the first time only when it was mentioned in WP(C).No.4990 OF 2011(W)

Ext.P8; while he had already produced his legal heir

certificate, namely Ext.P4, as early as in the year 2005. The

only objection against the said legal heir-ship certificate was

that it was not in English and the petitioner , therefore,

produced both the required certificates on 30.09.2010.

However, the FCI, nevertheless, rejected his application

through Ext.P14, inditing that these documents have been

produced six years after the death of his father.

14. I am, therefore, certain that the stand now adopted

by the FCI is inequitable and wholly improper, particularly

because the petitioner was, at no point of time, asked to

produce the certificate of immovable property until such time

as Ext.P8 order had been issued, rejecting his application for

the fist time.

15. I am, therefore, of the firm view that neither Ext.P8

or Ext.P14 can obtain imprimatur in law and that the same

deserves to be set aside by this Court.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition,

setting aside Exts.P8 and P10; with a consequential direction

to the competent respondent to reconsider the claim of the

petitioner in view of my observations above and taking note of WP(C).No.4990 OF 2011(W)

the declaration of law in Shreejith v. Deputy Director

(Education) Kerala [2012 (3) KLT 214] which has been cited

by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his

contention that it is not the form of the application but the

spirit of it, which is important.

The afore exercise shall be completed by the competent

respondent, after affording an opportunity of being heard to

the petitioner - either physically or through video

conferencing - thus culminating in an appropriate decision

thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

                                             Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    stu                                               JUDGE
 WP(C).No.4990 OF 2011(W)





                               APPENDIX
    PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

    EXHIBIT P1       TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 1-3-2005
                     OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

    EXHIBIT P2       TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23-3-
                     2005 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

    EXHIBIT P3       TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED
                     18.4.2005 PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE
                     DT.10.5.05.

    EXHIBIT P4       TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE
                     DT.4.7.05 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR,
                     AMBALAPPUZHA.

    EXHIBIT P5       TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 25.3.2010
                     SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER.

    EXHIBIT P6       TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT. 3.5.2010
                     ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

    EXHIBIT P7       TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.6.5.2010
                     ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

    EXHIBIT P8       TRUE COPY OF THTE COMMUNICATION DT. 7.9.2010
                     ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

    EXHIBIT P9       TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE
                     IN ENGLISH DT. 30.9.2010 ISSUED BY THE
                     TAHSILDAR, AMBALAPPUZHA.

    EXHIBIT P10      TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT. 17.9.2010
                     ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, AMBALAPPUZHA.

    EXHIBIT P11      TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
                     THE PETITIONER AS DIRECTED BY THE 5TH
                     RESPONDENT.

    EXHIBIT P12      TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13-10-

2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT. 18.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

WP(C).No.4990 OF 2011(W)

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1-1-2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.