Remanded

Rukmani @ Balamani Amma v. Accountant General (a and E) of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Sept 2020WP(C)/16790/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, wife of late headmaster, applied for family pension denied by respondent claiming she is not sole heir. Court held High Court cannot decide merits but directed respondent to hear petitioner and children within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd respondent to hear petitioner and children and decide claim for family pension within three months.

Rukmani @ Balamani Amma Vs Accountant General… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 16TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.16790 OF 2020(W)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

RUKMANI @ BALAMANI AMMA, AGED 82 YEARS W/O. LATE RAGHAVAN EZHUTHACHAN, PATHINARUPOTHIYIL HOUSE, VELLIYADU, MANNANUR P. O., OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.R.SHAJI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) OF KERALA OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPLE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 101.

¶12

Addl. MOHANAN, AGED 58 YEARS, 3 PATHINARUPOTHIYIL HOUSE, VELLIYADU, MANNANUR P.O., KAVALAPPARA, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.*

¶13

Addl. NALINI, AGED 53 YEARS, 4 PATHINARUPOTHIYIL HOUSE, VELLIYADU, MANNANUR P.O., KAVALAPPARA, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.*

¶14

***(Additional R3 and R4 are impleaded as per order dated 7.9.2020 in I.A.No.1/2020 in W.P(C))**

¶15

SR. G.P NISHA BOSS

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.16790 OF 2020 2

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner claims to be the legally

¶20

wedded wife of a certain Shri.Raghavan

¶21

Ezhuthachan, who is now no more. The petitioner says that late Raghavan Ezhuthachan retired from service as a Headmaster of VVLP High School, Chorottur, Ottappalam and that consequent to his death she is entitled to the statutory family pension. She says that, however, even though she made an application

¶22

for such purpose, namely Ext.P3, the same has yet not been considered by the 2^nd respondent, who is the competent Authority, solely saying that she must produce a legal heirship certificate to show that she is the sole heir of late Raghavan Ezhuthachan and also on account of certain objections having been raised by the children of his 2^nd wife.

¶23

The petitioner's specific case is that though Raghavan Ezhuthachan appears to have married two more times after having married her, all such marriages are illegal since she

¶24

WP(C).No.16790 OF 2020 3

¶25

is the first wife, who has never been divorced. She concedes that, however, late Raghavan Ezhuthachan had shown his third wife as the nominee in his service books, but that

¶26

the same is not valid, since she is still alive and rightfully entitled to the family pension, being his only legally wedded wife.

¶27

wife is concerned, the petitioner submits that their claims cannot be looked into by the 2^nd respondent, since their mother has not been legally married by late Ragavan Ezhuthachan. She, therefore, prays that Ext.P3 be directed

¶28

to be taken up and disposed of at the earliest.

¶29

Smt.Nisha Bose, learned Senior

¶30

Government Pleader, in response to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by her learned counsel Shri.P.R.Shaji, submitted that the real controversy is as to who are the proper legal heirs of late

¶31

WP(C).No.16790 OF 2020 4

¶32

Raghavan Ezhuthachan. She says that, therefore, until the petitioner obtains a valid legal heirship certificate, the 2^nd respondent may not be in a position to decide her claim for family pension; adding to it by saying that Ext.P3 has never been received by the said Authority, though it has been produced by the petitioner along with the writ petition.

¶33

The learned Senior Government Pleader

¶34

further submitted that, as is evident from Ext.P9 judgment of this Court, the children of the 2^nd wife of late Raghavan Ezhuthachan had earlier obtained a legal heirship certificate, in which the petitioner herein was not shown as one of his heirs; but that the same has been set aside by this Court directing the competent Authority to consider the issuance of a fresh certificate in terms of law. She says that, therefore, until the petitioner produces a valid legal heirship certificate, her claim made through Ext.P3 cannot be

¶35

WP(C).No.16790 OF 2020 5

¶36

considered.

¶37

Even though I find some force in the

¶38

submissions of Smt.Nisha Bose, the fact

¶39

remains that the sole contest between the

¶40

parties is as to who is entitled to the family pension. The petitioner claims to be first

¶41

wife of late Raghavan Ezhuthachan and asserts

¶42

that she has never been divorced, thus contenting that his 2^nd and 3^rd marriages are illegal. She, however, appears to concede that late Raghavan Ezhuthachan has fathered two children with the 2^nd wife but that since the said marriage is illegal, their right to claim family pension is untenable.

¶43

Even though the rival contentions of

¶44

the parties are as afore, the fact remains

¶45

that this Court, while acting under Article

¶46

226 of the Constitution of India, is

¶47

incapacitated from considering these matters on its merits, since these are issues that have to be decided by the competent Authority

¶48

WP(C).No.16790 OF 2020 6

¶49

at the first instance. It is only thereafter, if the parties are so desirous, can they approach this Court for a judicial review.

¶50

In such perspective, I am of the certain view that the 2^nd respondent must now hear the petitioner, as also Shri.Mohanan and Smt.Nalini who are stated to be the children of late Raghavan Ezhuthachan from his 2^nd wife - and then issue an appropriate order based on the claim of the petitioner in Ext.P3.

¶51

When I so order, I am fully cognizant

¶52

of the submissions of Smt.Nisha Bose, that Ext.P3 has not been received by the 2^nd respondent, but I am of the view that going by the COVID-19 pandemic scenario, it would not be necessary to stick on to formalities and that the 2^nd respondent can treat Ext.P3 to be a valid representation, taking it from the file of this writ petition, and then consider the same as per the directions above.

¶53

In the result, this writ petition is

¶54

WP(C).No.16790 OF 2020 7

¶55

ordered, directing the 2^nd respondent to hear the petitioner and the children of late Raghavan Ezhuthachan from his 2^nd wife, either through a physical hearing or through video conferencing, leading to an appropriate order on Ext.P3 as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶56

After I dictated this judgment, Shri.P.R.Shaji, learned counsel for the petitioner, interjected to say that even if Shri.Raghavan Ezhuthachan has children from his 2^nd wife, they are not entitled to any claim for family pension under the Rules and he prays that, therefore, the 2^nd respondent be directed to allow Ext.P3 forthwith. He also says that a legal heirship is not necessary in a matter of this nature, since going by the statutory provisions, the Authority has to consider the grant of family pension first to the legally wedded wife and only thereafter to even children.

¶57

WP(C).No.16790 OF 2020 8

¶58

It goes without saying that these contentions of Shri.P.R.Shaji will certainly have to be considered by the 2^nd respondent while deciding the matter as ordered above and for such purpose, I leave all such contentions open to be perused by the petitioner appropriately at the relevant time.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶61

JUDGE

¶62

MC/7.9.2020

¶63

WP(C).No.16790 OF 2020 9

¶64

APPENDIX

¶65

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶66

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE OF VISALAKSHY, THIRD WIFE OF LATE RAGHAVAN EZHUTHACHAN.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE OF RAGHAVAN EZHUTHACHAN.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 21.03.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT, O.S.NO.394/2015 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE ELDER SON OF SECOND WIFE OF LATE RAGHAVAN EZHUTHACHAN IN O.S.NO.394/2015 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT, O.S.NO.143/2013 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER (2ND DEFENDANT IN THE ABOVE SUIT) IN O.S.NO.143/2013 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE ELDER SON OF THE SECOND WIFE LATE RAGHAVAN EZHUTHACHAN, SRI MOHANAN (1ST DEFENDANT IN THE ABOVE SUIT) IN O.S.NO.143/2013 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.11.2019 IN WP(C) NO.6458/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF LATE RAGHAVAN EZHUTHACHAN.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, OTTAPALAM.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27.11.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶67

NIL

Rukmani @ Balamani Amma v. Accountant General (a and E) of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukmani @ Balamani Amma v. Accountant General (a and E) of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Balakrishnan Nair Vs Vibushan

K.G.Anilkumar Vs Reena Mohandas

Mallika Thampuran Vs Mr.M.Ravi Kumar @ Ravinandana Menon

P.K. Prakash Vs Deputy Director of Higher Education Kottayam

K.K.Kurian, Vs the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

Nanda Shaji, Vs Union of India