IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 26648 of 2009(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- DHANYA V.P., D/O.LATE P.KUMMINI NAGAN, AEE (RETIRED), SHELTER, ARUKIZHAYA, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF P.W.D., GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD ROADS & BRIDGES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, THRISSUR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A NTONY MUKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.26648/2009-A: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF KUMMINI NAGAN DTD. 19/08/2005. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR, ERNAD, DTD. 26/04/2007. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2. DTD. 24/08/2007. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 27/11/2007. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPORT OF TAHSILDAR DTD. 19/08/2008 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. FR 3-13563/2007 DTD. 15/06/2009 ISSUED BY THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE PAGE NO. 23 OF THE PENSION BOOK. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 26648 OF 2009 (A) ===================== Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P6, whereby the claim of the petitioner for family pension has been declined on the ground that there is no provision to pay family pension to son/daughter from a legally invalid second marriage, when the first wife is alive. Petitioner is the daughter of late Sri.P.Kummini Nagan, who retired as Assistant Executive Engineer from the Public Works Department on 31/1/98. According to the petitioner, the deceased had married her mother Vilasini and that the petitioner was born in that wedlock. It is on the death of the deceased that the petitioner claimed family pension, which has been rejected Ext.P6 stated above. 2. In my view, the claim of the petitioner is covered in favour of the petitioner by the judgment of this Court in Rakhi v. Accountant General (2010(1) KLT 50), where it was held that the child born in a void marriage is also entitled to family pension on the death of the parents. This judgment was rendered following the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rameshwari WPC No. 26648/09 :2 : Devi v. State of Bihar (2000(2) SCC 431). 3. In the light of the above, Ext.P6 is quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to pass orders granting admissible amount of family pension to the petitioner. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp