IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 1157 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.5497/2008 Dated 23/01/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. 2. PRINCIPLA CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSIONS), DRAUPADIGHAT, ALLHABAD. 3. OFFICER-IN-CHARGE RECORDS, RECORD OFFICE, BOMBAY ENGINEERING GROUP, KIRKEE, PUNE. 4. ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DEFENCE PENSION DISBURSEMENT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ SREEJA, KANIYATTIL HOUSE, VELIYANAD.P.O, ARAKKUNNAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA. ADV. SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------- W.A. No. 1157 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in the writ petition are the appellants. The respondents herein was the writ petitioner. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 2. The respondent was the wife of Sri. Sunil Kumar, a Naik in the Indian Army. Their marriage was in the year 1997. He died while in service on 2.6.1999. She was granted family pension. Later she married the brother of her husband on 14.5.2002. Thereupon the family pension, being paid to her, was stopped with effect from 15.5.2002. She was informed by Ext.P5, in answer to her representation, that since she remarried, her family pension cannot be restored. It was followed by Ext.P9 communication stating that under Regulation 219 of the pensionary regulations, only special family pension will be granted and not ordinary family pension to the widow, who marries her husband's brother. Challenging the above stand of the appellants, the respondent filed W.A No. 1157/09 2 the writ petition. She prayed for quashing Ext.P8 and Ext.P9 and also prayed for issuing consequential directions to the appellants to release family pension to her with effect from the date it was stopped. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides allowed the writ petition. Hence this appeal. 3. The relevant regulation has been produced in the writ petition as Ext.P5. Regulation 219, which is relevant in this case, reads as follows: “219. A relative specified in regulation 216 shall be eligible for the grant of family pension, provided:- (i) he or she is not in receipt of another pension from Government. (ii) he or she is not employed under Government (but see regulation 222) (iii) a widow has not remarried. This condition shall not apply to a widow who married her deceased husband's brother, and continues to live a communal life with and/or contributes to the support of the other living eligible heirs.” 4. Going by the above regulation, the respondent was eligible to get family pension provided, she continued to support the family members, who are supported by her earlier, even after the remarriage. But in this case, the family pension was discontinued on W.A No. 1157/09 3 the ground that she is not entitled to get ordinary family pension after remarriage and what is payable is only special family pension. We find the said contention is not supported by regulation 219, which we have already quoted above. In view of the above position, we find nothing wrong in the decision of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, (JUDGE ) P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps W.A No. 1157/09 4