IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23570 of 2007(E)
1. A.R.JANAKY,W/O. M.S. GOPALAN, 65 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY
... Respondent
2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E) KERALA
3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
4. THE SUB-TREASURY OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :19/10/2010
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No.23570 of 2007
==================
Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010
J U D G M E N T
One M.S.Gopalan retired as a Deputy Ranger of the Machad
Forest Range. Later, he died on 12.12.1999. Before his death, pension
was sanctioned to him and Ext.P1 revised pension order was also
issued, as per which, the petitioner was shown as the wife of Gopalan,
entitled to receive family pension on the death of the said Gopalan.
The service book and pension book of Gopalan showed the name of
the petitioner as his wife and the legal nominee for receiving family
pension after his death. But the respondents refused to pay the family
pension to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.2000 on the ground that
just before the death of Gopalan, i.e., 28 days before his death, a
letter dated 15.11.1999 was sent by him to the 4th respondent stating
that one Nalini Amma was his wife. According to the petitioner, said
Nalini Amma was the wife of the elder brother of Gopalan and she died
as early as on 29.6.1999. The petitioner’s representation did not meet
with success and, ultimately, by Ext.P12, the Accountant General’s
office informed the Sub Treasury Officer, Chelakkara Sub Treasury,
that the petitioner cannot be paid family pension. It is under the above
circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the
following reliefs:
w.p.c.23570/07 2
“(I) Issue writ of Certiorari quashing Exhibit P12 and its all further
proceedings.
(II) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay and
disburse Family pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2000 with all
consequential benefits applicable to the petitioner in respect of
petitioner’s late husband M.S.Gopalan, holder of the PPO TCR/12374.
(III) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to revalidate
Exhibit P1 and PPO No.TCR/12374 in respect of late M.S.Gopalan.
(IV) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay
interest at the rate of 12% @ (sic) for the arrears of pension
accumulated w.e.f. 01.01.2000, to the petitioner, till the date of
payment.”
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st
respondent taking the stand that an enquiry conducted by the
Tahsildar proved that Nalini Amma was the wife of Gopalan and,
therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to family pension. It is also
stated therein that the concerned DFO has also reported that Nalini
Amma was the wife of Gopalan. The learned Government Pleader
points out that the petitioner herself has produced Ext.P3 death
certificate of Nalini Amma, wherein, it is shown that Nalini Amma is the
wife of Gopalan.
3. The petitioner would contend that the so-called letter
written by Gopalan was not signed by him, but only his thump
impression was put therein, which would show that it is a concocted
document.
4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
5. Strangely, although more than one report has been
w.p.c.23570/07 3
referred to in the counter affidavit, the 1st respondent has not chosen
to produce copies of any of them. The 1st respondent has not even
chosen to produce copy of the so-called letter from Gopalan, which
document would be a crucial document to decide the issue. I am
therefore inclined to draw an adverse inference from the non-
production of those documents. Admittedly, in Ext.P1 order
sanctioning family pension, the petitioner is shown as the wife of
Gopalan. The petitioner has produced Ext.P6 certificate from the
Village Officer concerned certifying that the petitioner is the wife of
Gopalan. The petitioner has, along with I.A.914/2010, produced
Exts.P13 and P14 certificates. Ext.P13 is issued by the SNDP Sagha,
Killimangalam East, certifying that the marriage of the petitioner and
Gopalan was solemnised on 1.1.1969 as per religious rites, and her
husband died on 12.12.1999 without remarriage. Ext.P14 is the
certificate issued by the President of the Chelakkara Grama Panchayat,
wherein it is certified that the petitioner was married to Gopalan, as
per custom. The said Nalini Amma had died on 29.6.1999. That being
so, it is difficult to believe that on 15.11.1999, hardly 28 days before
the date of Gopalan, Gopalan would send a letter to the 4th respondent
stating that Nalini Amma is his wife insofar as the same is absolutely of
no consequence whatsoever since the Nalini Amma was no more on
that date. None else comes forward on behalf of Nalini Amma claiming
w.p.c.23570/07 4
that she was the wife of Gopalan. It is true that in Ext.P3 death
certificate of Nalini Amma, Gopalan is shown as her husband. But that
certificate is issued by Mundathicode Grama Panchayat, whereas
Ext.P4 certificate of death of Gopalan was is issued by the Panjal
Grama Panchahat. These discrepancies are sufficient to disbelieve
Ext.P3. Over and above all, Gopalan himself had nominated the
petitioner as his wife to receive family pension and the pension papers
were processed accordingly only. Therefore, even if the so-called
reports are there, I am inclined to believe the documents now
produced by the petitioner to show that she was the wife of Gopalan.
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to family pension as per Ext.P1
family pension sanctioning order. Accordingly, it is declared that on the
death of Gopalan, the petitioner has become entitled to receive family
pension. Arrears of pension shall be disbursed to the petitioner, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and the petitioner shall
be continued to be paid family pension every month.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
w.p.c.23570/07 5