Disposed

Jimmy David Chakiath v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence

Kerala HC13 Dec 2012WP(C)/10112/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged denial of family pension upon his remarriage compared to widows who receive it regardless. He claimed gender discrimination. As the matter was deemed policy-driven, the Court did not decide merits but remitted it to the Ministry for consideration.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of directing the first respondent (Principal Controller of Defence Accounts - Pensions) to consider the petitioner's representation and pass a speaking order within six

Jimmy David Chakiath Vs Secretary, Ministry… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/22ND AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 10112 of 2012 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

JIMMY DAVID CHAKIATH, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.DAVID CHAKIATH,

¶8

HUSBAND OF LATE NR-19881 Y, LT.COL.(MRS) MOLLY M.L., CHAKIATH HOUSE, KOONAMMAVU P.O. - 683 518, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 011.

¶12

2. PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSIONS), OFFICE OF THE P.C.D.A. (P), DRAUPADI GHAT, ALLAHABAD, UTHAR PRADESH - 211 014.

¶13

3. DEPARTMENT OF EX-SERVICEMEN WELFARE (D), PENSION POLICY, REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI-110 011.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

AMV

¶17

WP(C).No. 10112 of 2012 (L)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶20

EXT.P1	COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER NO. M/F.02018/20114 OF THE DECEASED WIFE OF APPLICANT.
EXT.P2	COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 26/7/2010 SENT TO THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3	COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 26/7/2010 SENT TO THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA.
EXT.P4	COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 26/7/2010 SENT TO THE DEFENSE MINISTER.
EXT.P5	COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 9/8/2010 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6	COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1(6)/2011-D(PEN-POLICY) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, DEPARTMENT OF EX-SERVICEMEN WELFARE DATED 6/1/2011.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

¶22

EXT.R1A	COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER NO.M/F/02018/2011
EXT.R1B	COPY OF THE NOTE NO.2237/(PEN/POL)/2010 DATED 09.08.2010.
EXT.R1C	COPY OF THE O.M NO.1(6)/2011-D (PEN - POLICY) DATED 06.01.2011

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

AMV

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶27

W.P.(C) NO. 10112 of 2012 (L)

¶28

Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2012

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner is a childless widower, who has approached this Court with an instance of 'gender discrimination' at the hands of the respondents; in so far as the benefit of family pension is being extended to childless widows even on remarriage, while similar benefit is virtually being denied to childless widowers.

¶31

The sequence of events narrated in the writ petition shows that, the petitioner was struck hard by way of a series of tragedies; firstly by way of the untimely death of his brother on 06.07.1999 and then that of his only child who bid farewell to this world on 05.11.2001 because of a genetic disorder 'Cystic Fibrosis'. Thereafter, it was the turn of his father who expired on 06.08.2006 and lastly, the 'life partner' who took her last breath on 28.04.2010. It is stated that the petitioner has remarried quite recently.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that, pursuant to the death of the petitioner's wife, the petitioner was

¶33

¶34

W.P.(C) NO. 10112 of 2012 (L)

¶35

getting family pension by virtue of service that was rendered by the deceased wife as Lt.Col in the Armed Forces. But in view of the recent remarriage, the petitioner may not be getting the benefit, any further, which is stated the sole income for the petitioner. Position is quite different in the case of childless widows who get remarried. The anomalous situation has been brought to the notice of the first respondent for immediate intervention by filing Ext.P2 representation, followed by similar representations/reminders. The learned counsel submits, that the only relief now pressed before this Court, is cause the same to be considered and disposed of within a reasonable time.

¶36

The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits, that there is no provision for acceding to the claims preferred by the petitioner for granting family pension to the childless widowers on remarriage. It is however stated that, a decision on Ext.P2 has to be taken by the concerned Ministry and it is more a matter of policy.

¶37

After hearing both the sides, this Court does not find it necessary to decide the merits of the case as this Court finds it

¶38

¶39

W.P.(C) NO. 10112 of 2012 (L)

¶40

fit and proper to have it considered and dealt with by the first respondent at the first instance. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P2 and

¶41

to pass a speaking order thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'six months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶42

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps.

¶43

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶44

Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶45

AMV

Jimmy David Chakiath v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jimmy David Chakiath v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Fathah Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Sajeevan Vs Guruvayoor Devaswom Represented by Its Administrator

Nijil Dimlee P. Vs the Director of Public Instruction

P. Kunjiraman Vs Director of Public Instructions

Jyothirmayi P.V. Vs State of Kerala

S.B.Vinod Kumar Vs the Registrar (Sunordinate Judiciary)