IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 WA.No. 2945 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15881/2006 Dated 30/05/2007 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2. PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE, ACCOUNT (PENSION), ALLAHABAD. 3. OFFICER IN CHARGE, AIR FORCE RECORD OFFICE, SUBROTO PARK, NEW DELHI 10. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------ V.K.LALITHAMBIKA DEVY, W/O.LATE SGT.P.R.C.NAIR NO.230077, KAILASAM, 40/2D8, PERANDOOR BRIDGE ROAD, ELAMAKKARA P.O., COCHIN-26. BY ADV.SRI.RAVI KUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. ------------------------------- W.A.NO.2945 OF 2007 (E) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T KOSHY,J. Respondent in this appeal is the widow of an ex-service man. Her husband was employed in Air force from 3.2.1960. He was discharged from Air force on 31.12.1975 after more than 15 years of service and he was getting pension from the Air force. Later in 1983, he was re-employed in the Reserve Bank of India and he died on 28.7.1998. Respondent has received family pension from the Reserve Bank of India. The widow was granted family pension from the Reserve Bank for the service taking into account the services rendered in the Reserve Bank without taking the long 15 years of service he had rendered in the Air force. Ext.P1 letter shows that Reserve Bank has decided to grant family pension even if the dependents of widow was granted family pension from other sources also. By Ext.P3, family pension for the service W.A.2945/2007 (E) 2 rendered in the Air force by her husband was denied. Paragraph 3 of Ext.P3 reads as follows: “3. However, as per policy in vogue on grant of family pension from Air force, the family pensioners who are already in receipt of family pension from re-employer of their late husband's are further considered for dual family pension provided the re-employer of their late husbands is invariably disbursing family pension under any one of the under mentioned contributory schemes of family pension. (a) Family Pension Scheme 1971 (b) Employees Pension Scheme 1995 As you are already in receipt of family pension from Reserve Bank of India and the same is not covered under any of the schemes mentioned above you are not entitled for defence pension, in addition.” The above is applicable only if they are employed in the government and not under a autonomous body like Reserve Bank of India, where pension is paid on the basis of a scheme. However, while calculating the pension, the service in the Air force is not taken into account. It is two independent services. A similar matter was considered by the Division bench of this W.A.2945/2007 (E) 3 Court in Union of India v. Subhadramma (W.A.No.1445/2003). In that case respondent's husband was employed in the Air force and after discharge, he got re- employment in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and K.S.R.T.C. granted family pension to the employee taking into account his service in the corporation. But on that ground appellant was denied pension from the Air force. She approached this Court and learned Single Judge allowed the case and directed the Air force to pay the amount. In appeal the Division bench held as follows: “The sole ground on which the claim for pension has been declined is that there is no provision for the grant of double pension. Since the rules provide for the grant of pension on completion of the specified period of service, the first respondent was entitled to claim it as of right. The mere fact that the deceased employee had got a job as a driver with the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation for a short duration of less than 5 years cannot mean that the right to claim family pension had been forfeited. Equally, the mere fact that some benefit has accrued under the provident fund scheme cannot imply that the other rights have been automatically withdrawn. In the absence of any specific rule to this effect, the claim as made on behalf of the W.A.2945/2007 (E) 4 appellant cannot be sustained. In the absence of any such rule, the claim that the respondent is not entitled pension cannot be sustained.” We respectfully follow the same and hold that the widow of the ex-service man is entitled to get the family pension for the services her husband was working in the Air force notwithstanding the fact that on the re-employment of her husband, she was getting pension under the Reserve Bank scheme of Pension for the term of her husband's employment in Reserve Bank. The bank while granting pension did not take into consideration her husband's service in the Air force. In the above circumstances, we agree with the learned Single Judge and hence this appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE K.HEMA, JUDGE prp J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 1st January, 2008