Allowed

S.Chellappan v. Geological Survey of India and Others

Kerala HC18 Oct 2016WP(C)/5843/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that a Pay & Accounts Officer cannot reject a family pension nomination for a deceased employee's second wife solely due to a pre-retirement bigamy that incurred no disciplinary action. The court quashed the rejection order and directed the respondents to sanction the pension from the date of the employee's death.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P4 is quashed; nomination to be changed in favour of petitioner; benefits granted with effect from 01.06.2009.

S.Chellappan Vs Geological Survey of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/26TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 5843 of 2007 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

SAKUNTHALA, AGED 70, W/O LATE CHELLAPPAN, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, KALINGARAJAPURAM, VALLAVILAI, KOLLEMCODE, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN

¶9

SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU SRI.SEBIN THOMAS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR AND HEAD OFFICE,

¶12

SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE, BANDLAGUDA, HYDERABAD-68.

¶13

2. DIRECTOR, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, KERALA UNIT, SOUTHERN REGION, T.C.22/298, MODEL SCHOOL ROAD, THAMPANOOR EAST, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

3. PAY & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA,

¶15

SOUTHERN REGIONAL, OFFICE, HYDERABAD-68.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶17

SRI.K.R.SUNIL, CGC SMT.MINI GOPINATH, CGC SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

P.V.ASHA J.

¶21

-------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.5843 of 2007

¶22

--------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18^th day of October, 2016

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The deceased Chellappan who was working as a driver in the Geological Survey of India retired from service on superannuation on 31.07.1986. The writ petition was originally filed by him alleging inaction on his application for nomination of his 2^nd wife in the pension records. When he passed away, the present petitioner got impleaded as petitioner.

¶25

Deceased Chellappan had nominated his first wife Thayi for receiving family pension. Consequent to the death of Smt.Thayi, he submitted application dated 10.02.2005, requesting to change the nomination for family pension in the name of the present petitioner Smt.Sakunthala. As no action was taken on the request of petitioner, he approached this Court filing writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to take necessary action to change the nomination for family pension in favour of Smt.Sakunthala and praying for a direction to

¶26

W.P.(C) No.5843 of 2007

¶27

¶28

implement Ext.P1. As per Ext.P1, the Director of Geological Survey of India by letter dated 10.02.2005 forwarded particulars of the petitioner to the Pay and Accounts Officer, for inclusion of the name of the second wife in the family details for the purpose of family pension, approving his request for change of nomination. But subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the 3^rd respondent-Pay and Accounts Officer issued Ext.P4 order rejecting the request for change of nomination saying that the deceased Chellappan had produced a certificate of marriage in which the date of marriage with the second wife was shown as on 20.05.1969, which was prior to his retirement and saying that at the time of the said marriage i.e., on 20.05.1969, the marriage with the first wife Thayi was in force and she was alive. Saying that second marriage during the life time of a spouse amounts to a misconduct, warranting disciplinary action, the Pay and Accounts Officer rejected the proposal for inclusion of the name of petitioner. Petitioner challenges Ext.P4 by way of amending the writ petition. While so, Shri

¶29

W.P.(C) No.5843 of 2007

¶30

¶31

Chellappan passed away on 16.05.2009, Smt.Sakunthala got impleaded in the writ petition and challenges Ext.P4

¶32

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, in tune with the order Ext.P4, saying that 3^rd respondent as per Ext.R2(a) i.e., by Ext.P4 dated 20.03.2007 addressed to the the Director of Geological Survey of India informed that the application of the petitioner does not come under the purview of post-retirement marriage, since the date of marriage was shown in Ext.R2(b) certificate as 20.05.1969. It was also stated that the said marriage when the first wife was alive amounted to a misconduct and therefore, it disqualified him from getting the benefits. It is also stated that second wife is not entitled to the family pension as a legally wedded wife, after the commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶33

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents.

¶34

It is seen that nomination was sought to be changed in favour of petitioner only after the death of Smt. Thayi, the first wife. Deceased Chellappan passed

¶35

W.P.(C) No.5843 of 2007

¶36

¶37

away years thereafter, there is no rival claim for nomination. Smt. Thayi and the additional petitioner were sisters. At any rate, when the present petitioner became eligible for family pension, the 1^st wife was not alive. Deceased Chellappan was not subjected to any disciplinary action for contracting a second marriage. Therefore after several years of his retirement, the respondents cannot treat him as having disqualified for service benefits, for having contracted the second marriage and refuse to record his nomination in favour of the 2^nd wife. In Ext.P1 the pension sanctioning authority had already recommended nomination. Even otherwise, when there was no rival claim raised, the Accounts Officer ought not have rejected the request for nomination. The pensioner himself passed away several years after the death of Smt.Thayi. The application was submitted thereafter. And it is again after several years that Smt.Sakunthala became eligible for family pension. Deceased Chellappan cannot be held under any deemed disqualification on the ground that he contracted second

¶38

W.P.(C) No.5843 of 2007

¶39

¶40

marriage. In these circumstances, the rejection of application for nomination is illegal.

¶41

At any rate, it is seen that the first wife was no more when deceased Chellappan submitted application for change of nomination. When there is no other rival claimant, the 3^rd respondent should not have adopted such unreasonable approach to the poor destitute widow. He had not incurred any disqualification for service benefits, merely on account of the 2^nd marriage. Moreover the 2^nd reason that nomination cannot be changed since the marriage was not one contracted subsequent to retirement is also equally baseless and unsustainable. At least for the period after 2009 i.e after the death of late Chellappan and Thayi, when there is nobody claiming nomination or any benefits from out of the service rendered by deceased Chellappan, there cannot be any valid objection for effecting change in nomination and to sanction family pension to petitioner.

¶42

In the above circumstances, Ext P4 is quashed. The respondents shall reconsider the matter and take

¶43

W.P.(C) No.5843 of 2007

¶44

¶45

appropriate steps for effecting change in nomination in the light of Ext.P1 approval of the 2^nd respondent and to pass orders in favour of the petitioner. Orders shall be passed by the respondents within a period of 'one month' from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. After effecting nomination, petitioner shall be granted all the benefits of family pension for the period starting from the month succeeding the death of late Chellappan i.e with effect from 01.06.2009.

¶46

This writ petition is allowed accordingly.

¶47

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶48

S.Chellappan v. Geological Survey of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Chellappan v. Geological Survey of India and Others

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

Telk Employee'S Federation Vs M/S.Telk Limited

Trivandrum Corporation Vs K.Sarala

G.Ayyappan Pillai Vs Telk Limited

St.Antony'S High School Vs Dr.Vishwas Metha

Sivasankaran Vs the State of Kerala and Another

C.Retnakaran Vs Kerala Water Authority