Dismissed

S.Chellamma v. the Union of India

Kerala HC11 Nov 2016WP(C)/7854/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by the widow seeking widow pension for her late husband, an employee of the former Ceylon Embassy in Washington. The Court held that since the husband was an employee of the Sri Lankan Government, the Indian respondents had only a limited role to play and directed the petitioner to approach the Sri Lankan authorities in Chennai.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to move the concerned Sri Lankan Government authority at Chennai for necessary reliefs.

S.Chellamma Vs the Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/20TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 7854 of 2012 (F) ---------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

S.CHELLAMMA, W/O. LATE SRI. RAMAN M.M., AGED 77, RAMANI VILAS, KUNNATHUKAL, KARAKKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.DR.V.N.SANKARJEE SRI.S.SIDHARDHAN SRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN SMT.C.K.LEKHAMMA SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI SRI.M.M.VINOD SMT.M.SUSEELA SMT.MARY JOHN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110OO1.

¶11

2. THE EMBASSY OF INDIA, WASHINGTON, U.S.A. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶12

3. THE HIGH COMMISSION OF INDIA, COLOMBO, SRILANKA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶13

R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 7854 of 2012 (F)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶19

-----------------------

¶20

EXHIBIT P1:	TRUE COPY OF TELEGRAM NO. 0001310 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2:	TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 25-05-1965.
EXHIBIT P3:	TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 10-06-1988 ISSUED BY THE EMBASSY OF SRILANKA IN WASHINGTON.
EXHIBIT P4:	TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 27-05-1988 ISSUED BY THE HIGH COMMISSIONER OF SRILANKA.
EXHIBIT P5:	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 31-08-1988 ISSUED BY THE WIDOW'S & ORPHAN'S PENSION OFFICE, SRILANKA.
EXHIBIT P6:	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 13-10-1988 TO THE SECRETARY AND ACCOUNTANT
EXHIBIT P7:	TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 16-01-1989 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8:	TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 08-06-1998 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03-02-1989 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21-11-1989 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11:	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 01-09-1969 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR CEYLON AWARDING RS. 9,088.08.
EXHIBIT P12:	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 07-09-2007 IN O.P. 11137/96.
EXHIBIT P13:	TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14-11-2006.
EXHIBIT P14:	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 01-11-2011.
EXHIBIT P15:	TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 12-01-2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶22

---------------------

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶28

W.P.(C). No.7854 of 2012 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 11^th day of November, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Petitioner is the widow of late M.M. Raman, who was

¶31

an employee under the Ceylon Embassy in Washington (Presently Srilanka). Raman died while he was in service. Accordingly, petitioner submitted several applications seeking widow pension. However, it did not find any result, an amount of Rs.9088.08 was paid to the petitioner by the Srilankan Government. Ext. P14 representation submitted by the petitioner was replied as per Ext.P15 stating that the representation is forwarded by the Ministry of External Affairs to the Srilankan Embassy at Washington. According to the petitioner, in spite of all these efforts, there is no positive attempt on the part of Union of India in securing pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

¶32

Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a joint statement contending that, husband of the petitioner died while in service on 12.5.1965. She was paid a lump sum amount by

¶33

W.P.(C). No.7854 of 2012 2

¶34

the Deputy High Commission for Ceylon, Madras on 1.9.1969 under the Pension Scheme Provident Fund Ordinance. Petitioner after a lapse of 23 years of her husband's death took up her case for Widows & Orphans (W&O) pension with the W&O Pension Office in Colombo. They have in turn asked the petitioner to provide the pension number assigned to her husband, in case, he has contributed towards the same. It is also stated, the High Commission has no role to play on the subject and their role is limited to forwarding of report to the concerned Srilankan authorities. It is also stated, Indian Pensioners' cases are dealt with Srilankan Deputy High Commission in Chennai and if the petitioner so desires, can move the said authority for redressal of her grievance.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned ASGI and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties.

¶36

Discussion of the facts and counter statements above would reveal that, the Indian Embassy as well as the Union of

¶37

W.P.(C). No.7854 of 2012

¶38

¶39

India has only limited role to play since the petitioner's husband was an employee of Ceylon Government. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any inaction on their part, there is a remedy available to the petitioner to approach the said authority situate in Chennai. This is exactly what is meant in the statement filed by respondents 1 to 3. Therefore, there is no scope for the petitioner to secure any relief in this writ petition. However, petitioner if so desired, will be at liberty to move the concerned authority of the Srilankan Government at Chennai seeking necessary reliefs.

¶40

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶41

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶42

smv 14.11.2016

S.Chellamma v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Chellamma v. the Union of India

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

Sudeep Mathew Vs Jobin K. George

A.J. Joseph Vs P.H.Sadiq Ali

Bindu John Vs Cochin University of Science and Technology

Sri.T.P.Jose Vs State of Kerala

Benny M.Baby Vs State of Kerala

Ambily Sivankutty Vs Union of India