Anees A.K. v. Food Corporation of India

## **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) 3 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-inharness 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) 4 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) 5 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) 6 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) 7 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) 8 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) 9 ## **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 23-32005 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 13-102010 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) 10 **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1-1-2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.**