IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1084 of 2008()
1. S.MEHERUNISSA, MUGAPPURA VEEDU, BEACH
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF ECONIMICS & STATISTICS,
3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, KERALA,
4. THE DIRECTOR, TREASURY DIRECTORATE,
5. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, KOLLAM.
6. SMT.MYMOONA, PADIPPURAKKALLU VEEDU,
For Petitioner :SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :21/01/2009
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ.
------------------------------------------
Writ Appeal No.1084 OF 2008
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Kurian Joseph, J.
The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3977/2008.
The writ petition was filed praying for a direction to sanction
family pension to the petitioner with effect from 10.08.2003 since
her husband died on 09.08.2003. However, as per the impugned
order, the family pension was sanctioned with effect from only
01.02.2007. The reason stated in the impugned order passed by
the Director of Economics & Statistics is that family pension in
respect of the husband of the petitioner, M. Abdul Shukoor, had
already been sanctioned in favour of the 6th respondent herein in
the light of the nomination made by Abdul Shukoor.
2. Learned Senior Government Pleader submits that Abdul
Shukoor had in fact made a nomination along with a joint photo
W.A.No.1084/2008 2
of Smt.Mymoona in the pension book and hence only family
pension was sanctioned in favour of the 6th respondent-Mymoona.
But, in Exhibit P1 judgment of the Family Court, Trivandrum
there is a declaration that the appellant is the legally wedded wife
of Abdul Shukoor. The 6th respondent has not disputed the same.
There is no appearance also for the 6th respondent.
3. It is also seen from Exhibit P1 judgment that the
appellant-petitioner had made a prayer for recovery of the
amounts wrongly and illegally paid to the 6th respondent.
Apparently, that was declined on the ground that there is no
evidence as to the amount thus paid.
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-
petitioner is that in the light of the declaration by the Family
Court that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife, she is
entitled to family pension with effect from 09.08.2003 and the
amount illegally paid to the 6th respondent is liable to be
recovered. It is also submitted that in view of the Bench decision
of this Court in Radhamony Amma vs. State of Kerala (2001
W.A.No.1084/2008 3
(3)KLT 49), the petitioner alone could have been paid family
pension being the legally wedded wife. It has been held therein
that the eligibility and entitlement of the family pension does not
depend on the nomination or otherwise of the employee
concerned. It depends on the status, the status originally
declared by the employee concerned. As a matter of fact, under
Rule 93 of the Kerala Government Servants’ Conduct Rules,
1960, even if the personal law permits, an employee is not
entitled to contract a second marriage without sanction from the
Government. Therefore, merely for the reason that the Family
Court has declined the prayer for recovery, there is no
justification in not ordering family pension with effect from the
date of eligibility. What is the method for recovery and payment
are also matters to be decided by the authority concerned in the
process.
Therefore, we quash Exhibits P2, P3 and P5 with a direction
to respondents 2 and 3 to pass fresh orders in the matter in the
light of the observations contained in the judgment. This shall be
W.A.No.1084/2008 4
done within a period of two months from the date of production
of a copy of this judgment.
The writ appeal is disposed of as above.
KURIAN JOSEPH
JUDGE
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
smp
W.A.No.1084/2008 5
KURIAN JOSEPH &
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ.
W.A. No. 1084 OF 2008
J U D G M E N T
21.01.2009