JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that his father, Sri. Babyraj M., who was the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Administration) in the office of the 3rd respondent, passed away on 22.10.2017 while in service. Sri.Babyraj is survived by his wife, Anitha, the petitioner herein and his daughter Karthika. Since the petitioner is an unemployed youth, having no income, an application, Ext.P3, was submitted before the 2nd respondent for getting compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Scheme. As per Appendix A of Ext.P3, Serial No.6, the total annual family income of the deceased Government Servant has to be shown on the basis of the certificate obtained from the concerned authority (a copy of the same has also to be attached). It is seen from Ext.P3 that the total annual family income of the petitioner is shown as Rs.8,12,592/- on the basis of the income certificate issued by the village officer.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would refer to Ext.P2 and it is submitted that the ceiling limit of the annual family income is Rs.8 Lakhs for getting compassionate appointment. Since the total annual family income of the petitioner is more than the limit, his application was rejected. He would also refer to Clause 13 of Ext.P1 and it is submitted that the family income to be reckoned is the actual income available to all members of the family from all sources other than family pension. It is also stated therein that in case of any disputes on income, the case shall be referred to the concerned District Collector and the income reported by the Collector shall be accepted as the actual income.

3. The issue was referred to the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent has issued Ext.P7 wherein it is stated that the annual income of the petitioner’s family is Rs.8,12,592/- on the basis of the certificate issued as per the Government Order and since the income is above the limit prescribed by the Government, the application cannot be entertained.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 5th respondent wherein it is stated the petitioner’s father died on 22.10.2017 while he was in Government Service and his mother is working as Headmistress in an Aided Lower Primary School. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that, based on Volume IV, para 248 of the Kerala Land Revenue Manual, the certificate issued by the Village Officer and also in the light of Ext.P1 Government Order, the total annual family income of the petitioner would come to Rs.8,12,592/-. A copy of the Kerala Land Revenue Manual is produced as Ext.R5(a).

5. The question arises for consideration is whether the income tax has to be deducted from the total income so as to arrive at the actual income available to the members of the family. Since Ext.P1 Government Order prescribes that in case of any disputes on income, the case shall be referred to the concerned District Collector and the income reported by the Collector shall be accepted as the actual income.

6. A perusal of Ext.P7 would show that the 4th respondent has not taken into account whether the actual income includes the income tax paid by the mother of the petitioner or not. As per Ext.P6, the salary drawn statement, it is seen that an amount of Rs.28,930/- is remitted as income tax. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the 4th respondent has not applied his mind while passing Ext.P7.

In that view of the matter, Ext.P7 will stand quashed. The

4th respondent is directed to reconsider the matter afresh and to find out the actual annual income available to the members of the family taking into consideration Exts.P1 and P2. While passing orders, the 4th respondent shall also take into consideration the specific contention of the petitioner that the income tax remitted cannot be reckoned for calculating the actual income available to the family. Orders shall be passed, as expeditiously, in any event, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgme