{"id":217392,"date":"2008-09-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmakumary-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2008"},"modified":"2015-02-22T19:28:30","modified_gmt":"2015-02-22T13:58:30","slug":"padmakumary-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmakumary-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Padmakumary vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Padmakumary vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP.No. 29070 of 1999(I)\n\n\n\n1. PADMAKUMARY\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. UNION OF INDIA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.VIJAYAKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SCGSC\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :17\/09\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                          S. SIRI JAGAN, J.\n                  ------------------------------------\n                      O.P.No.29070 OF 1999\n               ----------------------------------------\n             Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The petitioners are the widow and minor child of a deceased<\/p>\n
employee, who was entitled to pension under the Employees’<\/p>\n
Pension Scheme under the Employees Provident Funds and<\/p>\n
Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The 1st petitioner’s husband applied<\/p>\n
for pension under the Scheme. But before commencement of the<\/p>\n
pension payment, he died. The petitioners thereafter applied for<\/p>\n
family pension.    The family pension has been sanctioned only at<\/p>\n
the rate of 50% of the monthly member’s pension payable. The<\/p>\n
petitioners’ contention is that since the authority under the<\/p>\n
Employees Pension Scheme did not commence pension payment<\/p>\n
to the deceased employee before the death of the employee, the<\/p>\n
1st petitioner is entitled to full monthly member’s pension instead<\/p>\n
of 50%, in view of Clause 16 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme.<\/p>\n
The petitioners therefore, seek the following reliefs:<\/p>\n
             “(i)  Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the
\n       respondents to extend the benefits available to the
\n       petitioners under clause 2(ii) of para 16 of the<\/p>\n
O.P.No.29070\/1999                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
       Scheme 95 and sanction full pension cancelling
\n       Ext.P2 orders.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (ii)   award  the   costs   of  this  Original
\n       petition.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (iii)  Pass any other writ, order, or direction
\n       deems      fit  and  proper    in  the   nature    and
\n       circumstances of the case”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.     A     counter   affidavit  has   been     filed  by the<\/p>\n
respondents in which the contention taken is as follows:<\/p>\n
The 1st petitioner’s husband died on 10th January, 1999. Before<\/p>\n
death, he applied for monthly pension in December 1998.<\/p>\n
That application was processed and monthly pension of<\/p>\n
Rs.465\/- has been granted with effect from 1.8.1998. Since<\/p>\n
the deceased employee had applied for pension and was<\/p>\n
granted pension, the 1st petitioner is entitled to only 50% of<\/p>\n
the monthly members pension.\n<\/p>\n
     3.     I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The<\/p>\n
issue involved has to be decided on the basis of Clause 16 of<\/p>\n
the Employees’ Pension Scheme, the relevant portions of which<\/p>\n
are extracted below:\n<\/p>\n
            “16. Benefits to the family on the death of a
\n      member.- (1) [Pension to the Family] shall be admissible
\n      from the date following the date of death of the
\n      member, if the member dies:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (a)    while in service, provided that at least one<\/p>\n
O.P.No.29070\/1999                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
      month’s contribution has been paid into the Employees’
\n      Pension Fund, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (b)   after the date of exit but before attaining
\n      the age of 58 years, from the employment having
\n      rendered service entitling him\/her to monthly members’
\n      pension but[before the commencement of pension
\n      payment, or]\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (c)   after commencement of payment of the
\n      monthly members pension.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Note.-The cases where a member has rendered
\n      less than 10 years eligible service on the date of exit
\n      but has retained the membership of the Pension Fund,
\n      and dies before attaining the age of 58 years, shall be
\n      regulated under sub-paragraph (8) of paragraph 12.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (2)   (a)    The monthly widow pension shall be-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (i)   in the cases covered by clause (a) of sub-
\n      paragraph (1) equal to the monthly member’s pension,
\n      which would have been admissible as if the member had
\n      retired on the date of death or Rs.450 or the amount
\n      indicated in Table C whichever is more,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (ii)  in the cases covered by clause (b) of sub-
\n      paragraph (1) equal to the monthly members pension
\n      which would have been admissible as if the member had
\n      retired on the date of exit or [Rs.450\/- per month] or
\n      the amount indicated in Table C whichever is more,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (iii) in the cases covered by clause (c)of sub-
\n      paragraph (1), equal to 50 per cent of the monthly
\n      members pension payable to the member on the date of
\n      his death subject to a minimum of [Rs.450 per month],
\n            [(iv) in all the cases, where the amount of family
\n      pension sanctioned under the Ceased Family Pension
\n      Scheme, 1971, and is paid\/payable under this scheme is
\n      less than Rs.450 per month, the amount of family
\n      pension in such cases shall be enhanced to Rs.450 per
\n      month;]\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (b)   the monthly widow pension shall be payable<\/p>\n
O.P.No.29070\/1999                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
      upto the date of death of the widow or re-marriage
\n      whichever is earlier”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Note.-In cases where there are two or more widows,
\n      family pension shall be payable to the eldest surviving
\n      widow. On her death it shall be payable to the next
\n      surviving widow, if any. The term “eldest” would mean
\n      seniority with reference to the date of marriage.
\n      (3)   Monthly children pension-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (a)   If there are any surviving children of the
\n      deceased member, falling within the definition of family,
\n      they shall be entitled to a monthly children pension in
\n      addition to the monthly widow\/widower pension.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (b)   Monthly children pension for each child shall be
\n      equal to 25 per cent of the amount admissible to the
\n      widow\/widower of the deceased member as monthly
\n      widow pension payable under sub-paragraph (2)(a)(i)
\n      provided that minimum monthly children pension for
\n      each child of the deceased member shall not be less
\n      than [Rs.150 per month]
\n      [(c)  Monthly children pension shall be payable until the
\n      child attains the age of 25 years.]\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (d)   The monthly children pension shall be admissible
\n      to the maximum of two children at a time and will run
\n      from the oldest to the youngest child in that order.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      [(e)  If a member dies leaving behind a family having
\n      son or daughter who is permanently and totally disable
\n      such son or daughter shall be entitled to payment of
\n      monthly children pension or orphan pension, as the case
\n      may be, irrespective of age and number of children in
\n      the family in addition to the pension provided under
\n      clause(d).]<\/p>\n
The said Clause contemplates three types of situations for<\/p>\n
payment of family pension. First is that when the employee<\/p>\n
O.P.No.29070\/1999                5<\/span><\/p>\n
dies while in service. The second is that when the employee<\/p>\n
dies after retirement but before commencement of pension<\/p>\n
payment. The third is when the employee dies after<\/p>\n
commencement of payment of monthly member’s pension.<\/p>\n
Here, admittedly, although pension was sanctioned to the<\/p>\n
deceased      employee,   the  pension   payment     had    not<\/p>\n
commenced. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners is clearly<\/p>\n
covered by sub clause (b) of Clause 16(1) i.e., a situation<\/p>\n
where the employee dies before commencement of pension<\/p>\n
payment. Rate of payment of family pension in that situation<\/p>\n
is squarely covered by sub Clause 2(a)(ii), which stipulates<\/p>\n
that in cases covered by Clause (b) of Sub Clause (1) of Clause<\/p>\n
16, the amount of family pension payable is equal to the<\/p>\n
monthly member’s pension.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    The rule maker has taken pains to specifically<\/p>\n
stipulate the situations, governing payment of family pension.<\/p>\n
Consciously the rule maker has stipulated that in respect of<\/p>\n
death before ‘commencement of pension payment’, the full<\/p>\n
monthly member’s pension is payable to the widow. If the<\/p>\n
intention of the rule maker was to restrict rate of family<\/p>\n
pension to 50% in cases where pension had already been<\/p>\n
O.P.No.29070\/1999                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
sanctioned to the employee, the rule maker would have<\/p>\n
specifically stated so. Instead the rule maker stipulated the<\/p>\n
condition as ‘before the commencement of pension payment’<\/p>\n
instead of ‘before becoming eligible for pension payment’.<\/p>\n
When admittedly, the 1st petitioner’s husband died before<\/p>\n
commencement of pension payment, there cannot be any<\/p>\n
doubt that going by Clause 16(2)(a)(ii), the amount payable is<\/p>\n
full monthly member’s pension.           Consequently, the 2nd<\/p>\n
petitioner is also entitled to proportionate payment of pension<\/p>\n
till she attains the age of 25, at the proportionate rate<\/p>\n
mentioned in sub Clause 3(b) of Clause 16.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay to<\/p>\n
the petitioners, family pension at the rate equal to monthly<\/p>\n
members pension as provided in Clause 16(2)(a)(ii) and 16(3)<\/p>\n
(b) respectively and the petitioners shall be paid monthly<\/p>\n
pension every month at those rates.        Arrears shall be paid<\/p>\n
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy<\/p>\n
of this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
      The original petition is disposed of as above.<\/p>\n
                                      S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
\nAcd<\/p>\n
O.P.No.29070\/1999    7<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Padmakumary vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP.No. 29070 of 1999(I) 1. PADMAKUMARY … Petitioner Vs 1. UNION OF INDIA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.A.VIJAYAKUMAR For Respondent :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SCGSC The Hon’ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN Dated :17\/09\/2008 O R D E […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-217392","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPadmakumary vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmakumary-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Padmakumary vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmakumary-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-22T13:58:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmakumary-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmakumary-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Padmakumary vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-22T13:58:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmakumary-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1308,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmakumary-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmakumary-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmakumary-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Padmakumary vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-22T13:58:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmakumary-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmakumary-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmakumary-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Padmakumary vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Padmakumary vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmakumary-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Padmakumary vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmakumary-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-22T13:58:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmakumary-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmakumary-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Padmakumary vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-22T13:58:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmakumary-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2008"},"wordCount":1308,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmakumary-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmakumary-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmakumary-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2008","name":"Padmakumary vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-22T13:58:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmakumary-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmakumary-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmakumary-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Padmakumary vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217392","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=217392"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217392\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=217392"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=217392"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=217392"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}