G SHANKARAPPA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, in sanctioning the family pension to respondent No. 6 besides providing employment to her son under the Compassionate appointment Scheme, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner pleaded that he is the brother of Anginappa, who worked as a cook in respondent No. 5 Hostel and that he died as a bachelor. He further averred that recently he came to know that respondent No. 6, who is the wife of one Chinna Pothulaiah, falsely claimed that she is the wife of late Anginappa and that on her request, not only the family pension was sanctioned in her favour, but also her son was appointed on compassionate grounds in place of late Anginappa. The petitioner claimed to have made a representation on 29.01.2013 to respondent No. 1 with copies marked to various functionaries including the other official respondents in this writ petition.

(2.) In strict sense, the petitioner may not have the locus to question the benefits conferred on respondent No. 6 because he is not the rival claimant either for family pension or compassionate appointment. However, this Court feels that when serious allegations of fraud are brought to the notice of the concerned authorities, it is their bounden duty to enquire into the same and take remedial steps if the allegations are found true.

(3.) Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, respondent No. 1 is directed to cause an enquiry into the allegations made by the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law. If the preliminary enquiries reveal truth in the allegations of the petitioner, the competent authority shall issue notice to respondent No. 6 and after giving an opportunity of being heard, appropriate action shall be taken. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.