Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1659
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J.
Swathy Krishnan D/o. Late Radhakrishna Pillai - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Kerala - Respondent
WP(C) No. 39149 Of 2023
Decided On : 09-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SHRI.B.MOHANLAL, SMT.P.S.PREETHA, SHRI.ASWIN V. NAIR, SMT.JAYAPRABHA ARJUN, SHRI.AJAY S. KOSHY, SMT.BLESSY MARY SEBASTIAN
For the Respondent: SRI.DHEERAJ A.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
Dependency for certificate issuance does not require complete reliance on the deceased; partial dependency suffices.
Headnote:
(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Dependency Certificate - The petitioner sought to quash orders denying her Dependency Certificate following her father's death while serving in government. The court emphasized that dependency does not require complete reliance on the deceased. (Paras 1-12)
(B) Legal Principles - The court reiterated that documentary evidence of residence and partial dependency suffices for issuing a Dependency Certificate, as established in Adarsh K.K. v. State of Kerala. (Paras 4, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, daughter of the deceased government servant, applied for a Dependency Certificate after her father's death. Her application was denied based on claims of her independence post-marriage.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner provided sufficient evidence of her dependency and residence with her father, thus invalidating the denial of the Dependency Certificate.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner could be considered a dependent despite her marriage and the validity of the evidence provided.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that dependency does not necessitate complete reliance on the deceased, and the evidence presented by the petitioner was adequate to establish her claim.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
N.NAGARESH, J.
The petitioner, who is daughter of deceased Radhakrishna Pillai, who was a government servant, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Exts.P7 to P12 to the extent they decline Dependency Certificate to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner states that her father Radhakrishna Pillai passed away on 17.05.2022 while working under the Health and Family Welfare Department of Government of Kerala. The petitioner was a dependent of the deceased father. In order to obtain employment under the Scheme for employment assistance to the dependents of government servants who die in harness, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 application dated 22.09.2022 to the 5th respondent-Village Officer seeking Dependency Certificate. The 5th respondent sent Ext.P8 report which was adverse to the petitioner. By Ext.P9 letter dated 01.11.2022, the 4th respondent observed that the petitioner is not a dependent of the deceased. The 5th respondent thereupon issued Ext.P10 order dated 03.11.2022 holding that the petitioner is not a dependent of the deceased and hence Dependency Certificate cannot be issued to the petitioner.
3. The petitioner filed appeal against Ext.P10 order. The appeal was rejected by the 4th respondent as per Ext.P11 order dated 17.01.2023. The petitioner preferred a further appeal before the 2nd respondent which was forwarded to the 3rd respondent-Sub Collector / RDO. The 3rd respondent stated that the records produced by the petitioner did not establish that the petitioner is a dependent of her father. The Sub Collector / RDO held that the petitioner is a dependent of her husband. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P7 to P12 orders.
4. The petitioner argued that Ext.P1 Ration Card, Ext.P2 Aadhaar Card, Ext.P3 Voters list, Exts.P3(a) and P3(b) Certificates issued by the Panchayat Member and Booth Level Officer would establish that the petitioner is a dependent of her late father. This Court, in Adarsh K.K. v. State of Kerala [2022 (2) KHC 841] has held that the mere fact that the petitioner was also dependent on the income of his father cannot be a reason for not issuing Dependency Certificate as for getting a Dependency Certificate, one need not be completely dependent on the deceased.
5. The 4th respondent resisted the writ petition. The 4th respondent stated that on enquiry, the Village Officer found that the petitioner is not deserving Dependency Certificate. The direct enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar also indicated the same. As per the Village Manual, a person can be certified as dependent if he/she does not have enough income or means to live. Ration Card, Election ID, Aadhaar Card, etc. cannot be taken as a valid proof to show that a married woman is dependent on her father.
6. The 4th respondent further submitted that the GO dated 12.04.2010 extended compassionate appointment to married son/daughter, if they are dependent of the deceased. Local enquiry revealed that the petitioner is not a dependent of the deceased. She became independent of her father, after marriage. Therefore, the application for Dependency Certificate was rejected.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.
8. It is not disputed that the petitioner was married away on 26.09.2018. The petitioner's husband is a government servant. The petitioner would urge that she returned to her parental home in the year 2019 and thereafter she was depending on her father for survival. The petitioner's father passed away on 17.05.2022.
9. Ext.P1 is the copy of Ration Card, which would show that the petitioner's name was included therein along with the name of the deceased father. Ext.P2 is the Aadhaar Card of the petitioner which bears the address of her father's house.
10. Ext.P3 extract of Voters list would also indicate that the petitioner has been residing in her paternal house. The Ward Member concerned has issued Ext.P3(a) declaration stating that she knows the family for l
