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. 10097 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SARASAMMA KUNJAMMA K., AGED 68 YEARS, W/O LATE N.V.NARAYANA PILLAI, ULUNTHI MADATHIL(CHANDRALAYAM), ULUNTHI MURI, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FINANCE (FBS.A)DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER(HEALTH), ALAPPUZHA. 3. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL(A&E), OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, KERALA, M.G.ROAD, 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).10097/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the widow of N.V.Narayana Pillai, who died in harness as Nursing Assistant, Government hospital, Mavelikkara. Apparently, the elder brother of Narayana Pillai was also living with the petitioner and her family. The benefits due under the account of Narayana Pillai was not disbursed because there was a dispute in relation to the estate of Narayana Pillai. Petitioner and her children filed O.S.10/1991 before the Sub court, Mavelikkara and this was ultimately settled before the Lok Adalath, as evidenced by Ext.P1. A decree was passed by the Sub Court regarding the compromise entered into by the parties. Ext.P1 reads as follows:- “I.A.723/2000 allowed. Suit restored to file. I.A.1415/2002 allowed. Defendats 14 and 15 impleaded. I.A.1416/02 allowed. D14 accepted as guardian of D15. Parties filed compromise as joint memo, accepted and recorded. Suit decreed in terms of the joint memo. No costs.” W.P.(C).10097/2008 2 2. Ext.P2 is the settlement arrived at before the Lok Adalath which was taken note of by the Sub Court under Ext.P1. 3. In Ext.P4, the Accountant General states that though in the pension papers petitioner is reported as the wife of Narayana Pillai, she is legally the wife of Chandrasekharan Pillai, the brother of Narayana Pillai. Thereafter, he has proceeded to hold that since the deceased has no legal wife and children, petitioner being his brother’s wife is not entitled to family pension. But, nevertheless the DCRG was directed to be disbursed based on the succession certificate. Ext.P4 is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. It is difficult to sustain the stand taken in Ext.P4. But I find that there is no reference to Exts.P1 and P2 by the Accountant General. Therefore, I refrain from making any final opinion on the merits of the contention raised by the petitioner. It should be looked into by the Accountant General in the first instance. W.P.(C).10097/2008 3 5. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to re-consider the case of the petitioner with specific reference to Ext.P1 and P2. He shall take note of the fact that under Ext.P2 compromise petition, all parties, who had raised dispute in relation to the estate of late Narayanan Pillai, had accepted the status of the petitioner as widow of Narayana Pillai. Ext.P2 has been accepted by the Sub Court and the suit was decreed in terms of Ext.P2. The issue relating to the sanction of family pension and other retirement benefits under the account of Narayana Pillai may therefore, be re-considered in the light of Ext.P1 and P2, after hearing the petitioner or an authorized representative. Fresh orders shall be passed in the place of Ext.P4 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition also along with the documents before the third respondent. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs