High Court Kerala High Court

Radha Rajappan vs The Accountant General on 27 October, 2009

Kerala High Court
Radha Rajappan vs The Accountant General on 27 October, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 30368 of 2009(M)


1. RADHA RAJAPPAN,W/O.LATE RAJAPPAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ARYA RAJAPPAN,D/O.LATE RAJAPPAN,
3. SACHU RAJAPPAN,S/O.LATE RAJAPPAN,

                        Vs



1. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL,OFFICE OF THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,MINOR IRRIGATION

3. A.K.OMANA,SASTHAMPARAMBIL,NADUVILE MURI,

4. HONEY RAJ,SASTHAMPARAMBIL,NADUVILE MURI,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JACOB P.ALEX

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :27/10/2009

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                 -------------------------
                   W.P.(C.) No.30368 of 2009
             ---------------------------------
            Dated, this the 27th day of October, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

The 1st petitioner claims to be the wife of late Shri.Rajappan

V.N., who was a 1st grade Draftsman in the Office of the 2nd

respondent. Petitioners 2 & 3 claim to be their children. It is stated

that Shri.Rajappan expired on 24/08/1999, and what the petitioners

now claim is a share in the family pension that is due to the family

of the deceased. Although, they are also claiming DCRG i.e. due to

him, having regard to the fact that the disbursement of the DCRG is

based on the nomination made by the deceased, if the petitioners

are entitled, they will have to work out their remedies before

appropriate forum.

2. In so far as family pension is concerned, it is seen that

the petitioners are filed Ext.P6 representation before the 1st

respondent, with copy of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, it is only

appropriate that the 2nd respondent considers Ext.P6 representation

and pass orders thereon. This shall be done by the 2nd respondent

WP(C) No.30368/2009
-2-

as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of

production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ

petition.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg