Allowed

Sarojini v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Apr 2024WP(C)/62/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Widow of a retired college gardener, whose own pension claim was allowed in an earlier writ, sought arrears of family pension denied on audit objection. The court held the earlier final declaration bound the Government and quashed the rejection orders, directing release of arrears to the legal heirs within four months.

What did the court decide?

Exts.P10, P12 and P14 quashed; 1st respondent directed to release arrears of family pension to legal heirs of late Sankaran on production of legal heirship certificate within four months.

Sarojini Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 62 OF 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 SAROJINI

¶8

AGED 93 YEARS W/O. LATE SANKARAN, MELAR POYIL, UMMALATHUR, VELIPARAMBA P.O, KOZHIKODE - 673 008.

¶9

2 ADDL. PETITIONERS 2 TO 8 IMPLEADED ADDL.P2.BALAN.M.P, AGED 71 YEARS S/O LATE.SAROJINI, RESIDING AT MELAAR POYIL HOUSE, VELLIPARAMBU POST, KOZHIKODE -673 008.

¶10

3 ADDL.P3.GOPALAN.M.P, AGED 67 YEARS S/O LATE.SAROJINI, RESIDING AT MELAAR POYIL HOUSE, VELLIPARAMBU POST, KOZHIKODE - 673 008.

¶11

4 ADDL.P4.SAVITHRI.M.P, AGED 66 YEARS D/O LATE.SAROJINI, RESIDING AT EDOLI HOUSE, MANNARAKKAL PARAMBU, KOMMERI.P.O., KOZHIKODE- 673 007.

¶12

5 ADDL.P5.RAVINDRANATH.M.P, AGED 63 YEARS S/O LATE.SAROJINI, RESIDING AT MELAAR POYIL HOUSE, VELLIPARAMBU POST, KOZHIKODE- 673 008.

¶13

6 ADDL.P6.SATHI.P, AGED 59 YEARS D/O LATE SAROJINI, RESIDING AT THANNIKKAL HOUSE, MAYANADU.P.O, KOZHIKODE - 673 008.

¶14

7 ADDL.P7.MANOJKUMAR.M.P, AGED 56 YEARS S/O LATE.SAROJINI, RESIDING AT MELAAR POYIL HOUSE, VELLIPARAMBU POST, KOZHIKODE- 673 008.

¶15

W.P. (C) No.62 of 2018

¶16

¶17

8 ADDL.P8.USHAMANI.M.P, AGED 49 YEARS D/O LATE.SAROJINI, RESIDING AT MELAAR POYIL HOUSE, VELLIPARAMBU POST, KOZHIKODE-673 008. (THE SOLE PETITIONER DIED AND THE LEGAL HEIRS ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL PETITIONERS 2 TO 8 VIDE ORDER DATED 12.12.2023 IN IA NO.1/2023)

¶18

BY ADV SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL

¶19

RESPONDENT/S:

¶20

1 STATE OF KERALA FINANCE (PENSION) DEPARTMENT,REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶21

2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION O/O THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, 6TH FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶22

3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION NORTH ZONE, MANANJIRA P.O, CALICUT - 673 001.

¶23

4 ACCOUNTANT GENERAL A E KERALA M.G ROAD, P.B NO. 5607 TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.

¶24

SRI. BIMAL. K. NATH, SR. G. P.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

W.P. (C) No.62 of 2018

¶27

¶28

EASWARAN S. , J.

¶29

W.P. (C) No.62 of 2018

¶30

Dated this the 3^rd day of April 2024

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The present writ petition is filed by Smt. Sarojini, the wife of Sri. M.P. Sankaran, seeking for the grant of family pension in view of the specific direction issued by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment. Late Sri. Sankaran was working as a Gardner from 1.4.1961 to 31.5.1974 at the St. Joseph College, Devagiri, Calicut. His claim for pension was rejected and hence he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.27428 of 2003, which resulted in Ext.P1 judgment. It is stated in paragraph No.17 of Ext.P1 judgment that late Sri. Sankaran was entitled to the pension as prayed for. Consequently, by Ext.P3 order, the Government was pleased to sanction pensionary benefits to late Sri. Sankaran. However, by Ext.P4 order, the audit department raised an objection, and it is stated that late Sri. Sankaran was granted only exgratia pension and hence Smt. Sarojini, the wife of late

¶33

W.P. (C) No.62 of 2018 4

¶34

Sri. Sankaran is not eligible for family pension. Being aggrieved by that, Smt. Sarojini, the 1^st petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation before the Additional Secretary Finance, Government of Kerala with a request to grant the pensionary benefits as directed in Ext.P1. As per Ext.P7, it was informed that the Government sanctioned an amount of Rs.4,500/- as family pension. However, arrears were not sanctioned. Though repeated representations were submitted by Smt. Sarojini, the wife of late Sri. Sankaran, which did not yield any result. Ultimately, by Ext.P10 order, the Government rejected the claim for arrears of family pension. It is challenging the said order that the present writ petition is filed. Exts.P12 and P14 are also challenged in the writ petition.

¶35

It is unfortunate that, during the pendency of the writ petition, Smt. Sarojini, the wife of late Sri.Sankaran also passed away and accordingly, her legal heirs were impleaded as additional petitioners in this writ petition.

¶36

I have heard Sri. Sivan Madathil, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Bimal K. Nath, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶37

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted

¶38

W.P. (C) No.62 of 2018

¶39

¶40

that, in the light of the categorical finding of this Court in Ext.P1 judgment, the respondents cannot deny the claim for arrears of family pension.

¶41

On contrary, the learned Senior Government Pleader takes me through the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent and it is submitted that late Sri. Sankaran did not have a qualifying service of 10 years at the time of his retirement and therefore, the arrears of family pension as requested by the 1^st petitioner, late Smt. Sarojini, cannot be given without any valid reason.

¶42

I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶43

In the light of the specific declaration given by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment that late Sri. Sankaran was entitled to have the entire of service counted for pension, I am of the definite view that the Government cannot now deny the claim for arrears of family pension to the legal heirs of late Sri. Sankaran. When the entitlement of late Sri. Sankaran to have the entire period of service reckoned for pension having been found by this Court and the findings in Ext.P1 judgment having become final, the 1st respondent cannot take a contrary stand and deny the claim for arrears of family pension. Accordingly, Exts.P10, P12 and P14 will stand quashed. The 1st

¶44

W.P. (C) No.62 of 2018

¶45

¶46

respondent is directed to release the arrears of family pension to the account of the legal heirs of late Sri. Sankaran, the additional petitioners, on production of the legal heirship certificate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶47

This writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

¶48

Sd/- EASWARAN S. JUDGE

¶49

¶50

W.P. (C) No.62 of 2018

¶51

¶52

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 62/2018

¶53

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶54

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE JU	DGMENT OF THIS	HON'BLE
	COURT IN W.P(C) 08.01.2014.	NO.27428/2003	DATED
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE 21.04.2014 SEND BY 1ST RESPONDENT.	REPRESENTATION THE PETITIONER	DTD. TO THE
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE G. DATED 15.05.2014 ISS CHIEF SECRETARY (FINA	O(RT) NO.4010/2 UED BY THE ADD NCE).	014/FIN ITIONAL
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORD 98-99/84 DTD 19.05.2 RESPONDENT TO THE PET	ER NO.P18/PENA/ 015 ISSUED BY ITIONER.	265/AD- THE 4TH
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE 30.05.2015 SEND BY ADDITIONAL SECRETARY	REPRESENTATION THE PETITIONER (FINANCE).	DATED TO THE
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE O ISSUED BY THE 4TH RES	RDER DATED 16. PONDENT.	09.2015
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF DTD.15.10.2015 ISSUE CHIEF SECRETARY(FINAN	THE COMMUN D BY THE ADD CE)TO THE PETIT	ICATION ITIONAL IONER.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE 30.03.2016 SEND BY 1ST RESPONDENT.	REPRESENTATION THE PETITIONER	DATED TO THE
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE	REPRESENTATION	DATED
	03.10.2016 SEND BY 1ST RESPONDENT.	THE PETITIONER	TO THE
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE 23.01.2017 ISSUED BY SECRETARY TO THE PETI	COMMUNICATION THE ADDITIONAL TIONER.	DATED CHIEF
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE 16.02.2017 SUBMITTED THE 1ST RESPONDENT.	REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITIO	DATED NER TO
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE	COMMUNICATION	DATED
	07.06.2017 ISSUED BY	THE ADDITIONAL	CHIEF
	SECRETARY(FINANCE) TO	THE PETITIONER	.

¶55

W.P. (C) No.62 of 2018

¶56

¶57

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT OFFICE TO THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, KOZHIKODE AND COPY TO THE PETITIONER.

¶58

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 01.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DTD.11.12.2017 SEND BY THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL TO THE RESPONDENT 1,2 AND 4.

Sarojini v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarojini v. State of Kerala

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

Amina P.K Vs State of Kerala

Divya Baiju Vs the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority

City Tarpaulins, 9/236 Vs the District Labour Officer

Sakunthala, Vs State of Kerala

Madhusudhanan.P.v Vs State Council of Educational Research and Training

Raju Mathew Vs the State of Kerala