IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26889 of 2009(E)
1. MEKKARA VEETTIL PARU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO
... Respondent
2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E)
3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
4. THE SUB-TREASURY OFFICER,
5. SMT. C.P.DAKSHAYANI, AGED NOT KNOWN
For Petitioner :SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :11/01/2010
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No. 26889 of 2009
==================
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner claims to be the widow of M.K.Krishnan Nambiar
who died on 24.12.2008. The said Krishnan Nambiar retired as a
Government employee. The petitioner’s grievance in this writ petition
is that although the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of late
Krishnan Nambiar, family pension is not being paid to the petitioner as
the widow of the Government employee. Apparently this is because
the said Krishnan Nambiar has nominated the 5th respondent for the
purpose of receiving family pension in his pension papers. The
petitioner’s contention is that as early as on 17.12.1964, by Ext.P5
judgment, the Munsiff’s Court, Payyannur, accepted the fact that the
petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the said Krishnan Nambiar, in a
suit, O.S.No.158/1962, filed by Krishnan Nambiar to declare that the
petitioner is not the legally wedded wife of Krishnan Nambiar. It is
pointed out that the said judgment was taken in appeal before the
District Court as A.S.No.150/1965 and before this Court as
S.A.No.775/1966 and, by Ext.P6 judgment, this Court upheld the
findings in Ext.P5. That being so, Krishnan Nambiar being a Hindu,
cannot have another legally wedded wife. The petitioner, therefore,
seeks the following reliefs:
w.p.c.26889/09 2
“i) To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or
direction, calling for the entire records relating to Exhibit P4 order
and to quash the same;
ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction, directing the Respondents 1 to 4 to incorporate the
name of the petitioner as beneficiary for the Family Pension of the
deceased Sri.M.K.Krishnan Nambiar Retired teacher of Chattiol
S.K.V.U.P. School of Payyannur Educational Sub District.
iii) To direct the Respondents 1 to 4 to pay the family pension with all
sorts of benefits legally entitled to the petitioner and the pension
arrears with interest at 12% per annum.”
2. The 5th respondent has filed counter affidavit disputing the
contentions of the petitioner. According to her, she is the legally
wedded wife of Krishnan Nambiar. As regards Exts.P5 and P6, she
would contend that they are not binding on either the Government or
the 5th respondent since they were not parties therein. According to
the 5th respondent, the said Krishnan Nambiar had originally married
one A.P.Thankalakshmi Amma, in which marriage, she had one male
child and after her death, Krishnan Nambiar married the 5th respondent
and begot children. It is pointed out that the son in the first wife and
the 5th respondent and her children were living together along with the
said Krishnan Nambiar, which is evidenced by Exts.R5(a), R5(b) and
R5(c) documents. The further contention of the 5th respondent is that
as evidenced from Ext.R5(c) pension papers, the said Krishnan
Nambiar himself had nominated the 5th respondent for receipt of family
pension. In the above circumstances, according to the 5th respondent,
notwithstanding Exts.P5 and P6 judgments, the 5th respondent is
w.p.c.26889/09 3
entitled to receive family pension and not the petitioner.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. By Exts.P5 and P6 judgments, civil courts have accepted
the fact that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of Krishnan
Nambiar in a suit filed by Krishnan Nambiar himself. Once a competent
civil court declared the marital status between Krishnan Nambiar and
the petitioner, that too, in a suit filed by Krishnan Nambiar for a
declaration to the contrary, that judgment is binding on all including
the Government and the 5th respondent, who cannot have a better
right in respect thereof than the husband himself. That being so, the
question of the Government and the 5th respondent being not bound by
those judgments does not arise, because the 5th respondent can claim
only under Krishnan Nambiar. When the civil courts declared that the
legal wife of the said Krishnan Nambiar is the petitioner, then Krishnan
Nambiar could not have validly contracted another marriage with the
5th respondent or anybodyelse. The KSR does not give any right on him
to nominate a specific person to receive family pension when his
legally wedded wife is alive. Since rules provide for family pension
only to the legally wedded wife of an employee, the employee cannot
nominate somebodyelse for receiving family pension. As such, the 5th
respondent cannot now contend that she is entitled to receive family
pension and not the petitioner. Accordingly, I declare that the
w.p.c.26889/09 4
petitioner is entitled to family pension as the widow of late Krishnan
Nambiar. Accordingly, there would be a direction to respondents 1 to
4 to incorporate the name of the petitioner as beneficiary to receive
family pension of the deceased Krishnan Nambiar and pass orders
sanctioning family pension to the petitioner, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this judgment. Arrears shall also be disbursed within
that time.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge