V.V. Narayanan vs The Deputy Welfare Commissioner

C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.—Petitioner is the guardian of two children, namely Nithinraj. K.K. and Nithisha Narayanan, who were studying in the 2nd respondent''s school during the Academic year 2007-2008. Issue involved in this writ petition relates to rejection of claim for financial assistance for education provided under Ext. P1 scheme formulated by the Central Government which envisages financial assistance for education to the children of "Beedi workers", to be disbursed on the recommendation of the head of the educational institutions. Relevant portion of the Ext. P1 scheme dealing with the procedure for grant of such financial assistance is extracted below:

"As per the revised scheme, the head of the institution are empowered to receive the applications, (in duplicate) directly from the children of Beedi/LS and demine/Cine workers only once at their entry level of admission in the school along with the requisite certificate about parents employment identity card, income etc. Based on the recommendation statement of Head of the Institution, Financial Assistance will be given to the wards to the children till completion of his/her study. Head of the institution are expected to send annual recommendation statement or children after satisfying eligibility criteria for releasing financial assistance regularly every year."

(emphasis supplied)

Based on Ext. P1 scheme, the petitioner had submitted application with respect to both his children in the prescribed proforma, before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent had forwarded the said application along with applications of other students and a statement prepared in the prescribed format as evidenced from Ext. P3. It is stated that the financial assistance was sanctioned and disbursed on the basis of Exts. P2, P2(a) and P3 with respect to the year 2006-2007. Likewise, with respect to the year 2007-2008 the 2nd respondent had forwarded Ext. P6 statement (annual recommendation statement) in the case of those beneficiaries who had already received financial assistance for the year 2006-2007. So also Ext. P7 was forwarded with respect to the fresh beneficiaries enclosing their applications. But the 1st respondent had sanctioned only the fresh applications forwarded under Ext. P7, but rejected continued grant of financial assistance to those who were granted such benefits during the year 2006-2007. Responding to enquiries made by the Headmaster, the 1st respondent had issued Ext. P12 reply stating that the recommendation statements for continued grant of financial assistance was not considered only because it is found that the signature of each student required under the statement was not appended.

The petitioner contended that, the recommendation statement was forwarded in the prescribed proforma, copy of which is produced as Ext. P13, and there was no irregularity in submission of the statements. Even though the 2nd respondent had submitted Ext. P14 explanation before the 1st respondent, the benefit was again declined by sending Ext. P15 reply, stating the reason that there was a change in the prescribed format with respect to the year 2007-2008 and all the Deputy Directors of Education were requested to issue necessary directions to the heads of educational institutions to submit the statements in the changed format. However, it is stated that, statements submitted with respect to the subsequent year of 2008-2009 was considered, since the format was again changed dispensing with the requirement for obtaining signature of the students. It is challenging Exts. P12 and P15 and seeking appropriate direction for payment of the financial assistance, this writ petition is filed.

In the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent, it is mentioned that, there were certain amendments in the scheme with respect to the method for applying for the financial assistance during the Academic year 2007-2008. The 2nd respondent has not forwarded the recommendation statement in the prescribed format as per Ext. R1(b), after obtaining signature of the students concerned. Since there was procedural irregularity, the financial assistance could not be granted, is the contention.

While evaluating the rival contentions, it is evident that the change in the format of the ''annual recommendation statement'' was never intimated to the 2nd respondent from the Central Government or from the office of the 1st respondent. Contention of the 1st respondent is that the scheme was forwarded to the Deputy Directors concerned with direction to give necessary instructions to the heads of all educational institutions. There is nothing to indicate that the Deputy Directors have received any such directions and/or they have instructed the schools about the change in the format. It is to be noticed that, despite receipt of Ext. P6 statement the 1st respondent had not even cared to intimate the 2nd respondent about the change in the format nor he had afforded any opportunity to the 2nd respondent to rectify the defect. This Court do not find any significance change with respect to the formats, except the signature of the student included in the ''annual recommendation statement''. No sanctity or any vital significance can be attached to the signature of the students who are obviously minors of a tender age. There is no case for the 1st respondent that veracity of the details contained in the statement could not be ascertained because of non obtainment of the signature of the student. The scheme in question is on introduced to provide social security and welfare the families in the particular sector. The concession or incentive formulated by the Central Government as a welfare measure to be provided to the unorganized sector of workers, cannot be denied on mere technicalities. Such welfare measures are provided to protect the needy persons, who belongs to lower strata of the community. Hence denial of the benefit on mere technicality cannot be justified.

In the above mentioned circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and Exts. P12 and P15 are hereby quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider Ext. P6 ''annual recommendation statement'' with respect to the claim for payment of financial assistance to the two children of the petitioner (sl. nos. 22 and 44 in Ext. P6) for the year 2007-2008 and to grant the assistance if funds are available under the scheme with respect to the year in question or if any excess funds are available with respect to the current year.

Needful steps in this regard shall be taken at the earliest, any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.