R SREEKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is an Administrative Officer at Kerela State Electronics Development Corporation. He has filed the above Original Petition for a direction to grant the benefit of reservation to his daughter which is granted to the Socially and Educationally Backward Community. As per the rules of reservation, if the annual income of the family of the petitioner is more than Rs. 42,000/-, he is not eligible for reservation. The Village Officer has certified that his income is Rs. 45,200/- and consequently his daughter is not likely to be treated as belonging to the Backward Community. Hence he has filed the above writ petition for a direction to grant the benefit and to quash the income certificate Ext. P3 issued by the Village Officer.

(2.) From the facts, it is seen that the petitioner who is working as an Administrative Officer is drawing a total salary of Rs. 8,857/50 (Basic Pay Rs. 3,425/-, Personal Pay Rs. 300/-, D.A. Rs. 4760/- and H.R.A. Rs. 372.50) in the scale of pay of Rs. 2400-3425. Ext. P1 certificate is the salary certificate issued by the company in which he is working. In the application filed by the petitioner under column 8 he has stated Rs. 45,200/- as his annual family income. In the income certificate given by the Village Officer, he has multiplied the basic pay plus personal pay with 12 and given the certificate to the effect that his salary is Rs. 45,200/-. The case of the petitioner is that he is going to be superannuated on 31-8-1997 and, therefore, he would not be having any salary thereafter. Consequently, his income for the year 1997-98 would be less than Rs. 42,000/-. In the above circumstances, the certificate issued by the Village Officer cannot represent the correct income. The fallacy of the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he wants to construe the income of the petitioner as the income that he would be drawing for 1997-98 i.e. from 1-4-1997 to 31-3-1998. For the purpose of assessing income under the Income-tax Act, S. 4 deals with the charge of income-tax. According to this provision, the income-tax shall be charged for any assessment year in respect of the total income of the previous year of every person. 'Previous year' has been defined under S. 3 which means the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year. 'Assessment year' has been defined as the period of 12 months commencing on the first day of April every year. When the certificate is sought for showing the income, the officer has to take note of his income of the previous year and not his future income. As per the salary certificate Ext. P1, petitioner's salary has been set out and, therefore, his income from April, 1996 to March, 1997 is to be taken into account for the purpose of deciding the income and the Village Officer has rightly decided on that basis. As a matter of fact, the petitioner's daughter has also stated under column 8 the annual family income as Rs. 45,200/- which was also signed and declared by the petitioner as the correct statement.

(3.) If the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, namely, the income called for is the income of the next year or future income, it will lead to anomalous results. For example, a person who is doing business and having income of Rs. 42,000/- up to April, 1997 may not get any income in the coming year as it may happen in the case of the petitioner since he will be retiring in August, 1997. It would not be possible to definitely come to the conclusion that the petitioner will not have any income at all after August, 1997. His service may be extended or he may do some business where he will be having some income. Therefore, it would not be possible for an officer to assess the future income of a person. Income in the circumstances should always mean the income of the previous year and not of the coming year. In that view of the matter, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the income certificate issued by the Village Officer based on the salary certificate issued by the Company in which he is working.Original Petition is accordingly dismissed.Petition dismissed.