IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9717 of 2008(F) PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. K.THANKAMONY, `THIRUVATHIRA', KWRA-9A, KAVALLOOR LANE, MANCHADIMOODU, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ATHIRA THANKOM, DO. DO. 3. ANJANA THANKOM, DO. DO. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 039. 2. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, DISTRICT TREASURY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, RURAL DISTRICT TREASURY, KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P(C)No.9717 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008. JUDGMENT The first petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2005. Her husband N.Raveendranathan was a Senior Accountant in the District Treasury, Thiruvananthapuram and he retired on 31.3.2000. Apparently, due to certain clinical disabilities Raveendranathan was not able to submit the necessary papers for claiming terminal benefits at the appropriate time. Ext.P1 gratuity payment order was issued by the Accountant General on 9.7.2003. But since non-liability certificate was not issued by the 2nd respondent, the amount could not be claimed by the first petitioner's husband, who died on 17.1.2005. The gratuity payment order was returned to the 2nd respondent for forwarding a fresh certificate to the 1st respondent. The 1st petitioner submitted a certificate of administration-Ext.P3, issued by the Administrator General, specifically in relation to the Death cum Retirement Gratuity due to deceased N.Raveendranathan. It is issued in favour of the 1st WP(C)No.9717/08 :: 2 :: petitioner. Apparently, the first petitioner had approached the Lok Ayukta, with a complaint and Lok Ayukta had issued the following directions: (a) The first respondent shall sanction family pension to the complainant with effect from 01.02.2005 within two weeks from the date of production of legal heirship certificate. (b) The respondents shall disburse the DCRG amount due to the deceased Raveendranathan after deducting Rs.24,158/- within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 2. In spite of the directions, the same has not been disbursed so far. But reasons are given in Ext.P5. According to the Senior Accounts Officer in the office of the Accountant General, though a certificate of administration, Ext.P3, has been produced by the 1st petitioner, if the deceased has children, they are also eligible to get the share in the DCRG. In spite of understanding the position, the District Treasury Officer has required to issue departmental sanction for authorising the pension. Ext.P5, the communication WP(C)No.9717/08 :: 3 :: issued in this regard is dated 30.3.2007. The petitioner has approached this court aggrieved by the delay in proceeding further pursuant to Ext.P5. 3. In view of the fact that certificate of administration has been produced before the 2nd respondent, which has apparently been forwarded to the 1st respondent, no further proof, as regards the entitlement of the 1st petitioner to the estate of the deceased insofar as it relates to the amount mentioned in Ext.P3, is required. 4. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that apparently, the 2nd respondent is awaiting the production of the legal heirship certificate. No Legal heirship certificate is required in circumstances where a letters of administration is issued by the competent authority for the same amount. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to forward the departmental sanction as regards the DCRG payable to the petitioners under the account of late N.Raveendranathan, in terms of WP(C)No.9717/08 :: 4 :: the directions already issued under Ext.P5, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Necessary authorisation will be issued by the 1st respondent within one month from the date of departmental sanction from the 2nd respondent. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge