Kerala High Court
Vanaja vs Guruvayoor Devaswom on 25 August, 2022
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
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
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
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
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
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
