IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12128 of 2010(S)
1. P0URNAMI.K.PREETHI(MINOR AGED 17)
... Petitioner
2. SHERATH.K.GUHAN(MINOR AGED 15)
Vs
1. SOUTHERN RAILWAY,REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. R.SHAKUNTHALA,D/O.RAMASWAMY,OZHIPARA,
For Petitioner :SRI.L.MOHANAN
For Respondent :SRI.JAMES KURIAN, SC, RAILWAYS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :20/05/2010
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
& S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.12128 of 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010
JUDGMENT
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
Notice to the respondents dispensed with, reserving
their right to seek re-hearing of this writ petition, if they so
desire.
2. A railway employee, one Kumaresan, died on
25.7.2005. The two minor petitioners are his children born to
Smt.Sobhana, who pre-deceased Kumaresan. The two minors,
represented by their paternal uncle, filed the original application
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, seeking a direction to
the Railways to release his entire retiral benefits to them.
3. The Railways contended that as per the family
composition of the late employee, as recorded in the records in
the Railways, though the applicants are shown as the children of
Kumaresan through the first wife, one Smt.R.Shakunthala is
shown as the second wife. The Railways, accordingly, had
released 50% of the retiral benefits to Smt.R.Shakunthala in
terms of the Rules. She has also been given compassionate
W.P.(C)No.12128 of 2010
:: 2 ::
appointment. The Railways say that the applicants are minors
and the funds due to them could not be released, because there
was no claim by any person on behalf of the minors, with any
appointment of a legal guardian.
4. With the aforesaid, we may now notice that no
rejoinder was filed by the applicants to the clear statement in the
reply of the Railways before the Tribunal that the family
composition of the late employee, as recorded in the records of
the Railway, showed Smt.R.Shakunthala as the second wife of
Kumaresan.
5. When the family composition, as available in the
Railways, shows the persons as noted above, the Tribunal acted
well within its jurisdiction to have stated that it would not
interfere with the matter. It was not within the domain of the
Tribunal to decide the nature of succession of the estate of a
deceased Government Servant. The validity or otherwise of the
marriage of Smt.R.Shakunthala with the deceased is not a matter
over, which the Tribunal could have sat over judgment. More
importantly, though Smt.R.Shakunthala is impleaded as the 2nd
W.P.(C)No.12128 of 2010
:: 3 ::
respondent in this writ petition, she was not a party before the
Tribunal. Therefore, we are clear in our mind, notwithstanding
the fact that the Railways had released 50% of the amount to
Smt.R.Shakunthala, had treated her as the wife of Kumaresan,
going by the records available with the Railways, nothing stands
in the way of the petitioners seeking relief in relation to the entire
estate of the deceased, including the retiral benefits, by seeking
appropriate reliefs from the competent court. It is clarified that
the findings in Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal would not stand in the
way of the petitioners seeking such relief.
Subject to this observation, this writ petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge.