Adult children of family units seeking government benefits can be treated as separate eligible entities under the definition of 'family' in stated schemes.

J U D G M E N T

The 1^st petitioner is the wife of the 5^th respondent. The

2^nd petitioner is the son born out of the wedlock between the 1^st petitioner and the 5^th respondent. The 1^st petitioner and the 5^th respondent also have another son, namely Johnson, born on 30.03.1997. The petitioners and the 5^th respondent were residents of C.R.P. Kunnu, Periya, Varayal P.O., in the Periya Range of the North Wayanad Forest Division.

2. The Government announced a package for the voluntary relocation of willing and eligible families under the Rebuild Kerala Development Programme, pursuant to the Government Order dated 14.11.2019. As per the said scheme, every eligible family is entitled to a compensation package amounting to Rs. 15 lakhs per family.

3. The dispute in this writ petition essentially is as to whether the 1^st petitioner and the 5^th respondent should be treated as one unit, and whether their two children—Johnson and Mathews—should be considered as two separate eligible entities.

4. The fact that an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs is to be extended as a compensation package for each “eligible willing family” is not in dispute. Under the guidelines at Ext. P10, the term “family” has been defined as under:

“Family includes a person, his/her spouse, minor sons and daughters, minor brothers & sisters, father, mother and other relatives residing with him/her and dependent on him/her for their livelihood.

The following person will be treated as separate, eligible families, even if they currently live together with other relatives with the main family.

1. Major son/daughter (over 18 years), irrespective of his/her marital status.

2. Sister and brother more than 18 years of age.

3. Physically and mentally challenged person, irrespective of age and sex.

4. Minor orphan who has lost both his/her parent.

5. A widow or a woman divorcee.”

5. I have heard Sri. Alex Francis, the learned counsel representing Smt. Saritha Thomas, the learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as Sri. T.P. Sajan, learned Special Government Pleader (Forest).

6. Sri. Alex Francis, relies on the definition of “family” referred to above to contend that, though the term “family” includes children, a major son/daughter above 18 years of age has been specifically excluded from the definition and is to be treated as a “separate eligible entity.”

7. However, Sri. T.P. Sajan, learned Special Government Pleader (Forest), contends that even a major son/daughter must be “dependent” on the father/mother for their livelihood so as to get the benefits. Therefore, in the present case, since Johnson has his own vocation, he cannot be treated as a separate eligible entity, according to him.

8. I have considered the aforesaid contentions raised by both sides. In my opinion, although the term “family” includes children, where there is a specific exclusion in respect of a major son/daughter, irrespective of their marital status, such major son/daughter must be treated as a separate eligible unit.

9. If such an interpretation is not adopted and the interpretation suggested by Sri. Sajan is accepted, it would lead to a situation where a major son/daughter would be rendered ineligible for any benefit merely on the ground that they have independent employment. Such an interpretation would defeat the very purpose of the package introduced by the Government Order dated 14.11.2019.

10. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the children of the 1^st petitioner and the 5^th respondent herein are to be considered as separate eligible entities. 11. In the light of the above, the second issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the p