Kerala High Court
Santhamma K vs State Of Kerala on 6 June, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 38454 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
SANTHAMMA K.
AGED 62 YEARS
W/O. VIJAYA KUMAR K., BENGLAVUPARAMBIL, CHIRAKKADAVU
EAST P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686520, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
FACT C.D. TOWNSHIP,QUARTERS NO.304/3,
AMBALAMEDU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682303
BY ADVS.
C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
P.ABDUL NISHAD
SRAVAN M.S.
RAIHANATH T.H.
ISTINAF ABDULLAH
MUHAMMED AMEEN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO AGRICULTURAL
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
3 THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043
4 THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, MALAPPURAM
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,UP HILL,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676505
5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION ROAD, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030
6 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, POOPPANI ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683543
7 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE OFFICE, PUTHENCRUZ P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682308
SMT.C.S.SHEEJA, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 38454 OF 2022 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that she is the wife of late M.Vijayakumar,
who was working as an Agricultural Field Officer in the Agriculture
Department. She says that he died in harness on 28.12.2008 and that
no liability was fixed against him, thus entitling her to receive all his
retiral benefits. She alleges that, however, more than 13 years later,
she has received Ext.P2 notice, demanding an amount of
Rs.16,97,008/-, purportedly to be some liability fixed against her
husband, followed by Ext.P3 order of attachment, but without
specifying which property is being proceeded against. The petitioner
says that both Exts.P2 and P3 are bad in law particularly because, she
has not inherited any property of her husband, but only receiving her
entitled family pension, which cannot be proceeded against; and
therefore, that they are liable to be set aside by this Court.
2. Sri.C.M.Mohammed Iquabal - learned counsel for the
petitioner, further explained that, since the petitioner's husband died
as early as in the year 2008 while he was in service, and when no
disciplinary action or steps for fixation of liability had been initiated or
even concluded while he was alive, it could never had been completed
after his demise; and that this is manifest from the fact that she was
released all the eligible retiral benefits without demur. He argued that
the present attempt, to proceed against the family pension received by
his client, is absolutely illegal because it is her entitlement and not
something that is accrued to her late husband; while the attachment
order sought through Ext.P3 is mischievous because, it does not
contain the schedule of the property sought to be proceeded against.
He argued that this is more so for the reason, as stated above, that she
has not inherited any property from her husband. He, therefore,
reiteratingly prayed that this writ petition be allowed.
3. In response, Smt.C.S.Sheeja - learned Senior Government
Pleader, submitted that the facts as stated above by the petitioner do
not appear to be correct because, there was a disciplinary action
against her husband while he was in service. She conceded that since
Sri.M.Vijayakumar died on 28.12.2008, the said proceedings were
terminated but that a Liability Certificate for an amount of
Rs.18,91,480/- had been issued. She, however, could not explain, even
to a pointed question from this Court, as to how his retiral benefits had
been earlier released to the petitioner; but argued that it is irrelevant
because as long as the liability was fixed against Sri.M.Vijayakumar,
his assets and estates are liable to answer the same. She concluded
saying that, since the petitioner is receiving family pension, it is also
liable to be attached.
4. When I consider and evaluate the afore submissions and
examine Exts.P2 and P3 on its touchstone, it becomes evident that
Ext.P2 merely says that a certain amount is due from the petitioner's
husband and that Revenue Recovery action against it has been
initiated. It does not say that she had inherited any property, or that
she is liable for the said amount; but proceeds apparently on the
assumption that she is in possession of her husband's estate.
5. As far as Ext.P3 is concerned, it is far worse because, it does
not contain a schedule, nor does it disclose the details of the property;
but it is issued as a notice of attachment against the petitioner.
6. Obviously, this Court cannot find favour either with Exts.P2 or
P3, particularly because the petitioner asserts vehemently that she has
neither inherited any property from her husband and that the family
pension she receives is not a bounty, but her entitlement in law.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside
Ext.P3; with a consequential liberty being reserved to the petitioner to
file objections against Ext.P2 before the competent Authority and if this
is done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment, the same shall be considered by the said Authority,
after affording her an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in
an appropriate order and necessary action thereon without any
avoidable delay.
Needless to say, until such time as the afore is done and the
resultant order communicated to the petitioner, all further action
pursuant to Ext.P2 will stand deferred, but can be taken forward
thereafter, subject to her rights, following due procedure.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/10.6
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38454/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF
HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER DATED 09.01.2009
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY NOTICE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED
BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 15.09.2022
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ATTACHMENT NOTICE
ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED
15.09.2022
