IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 WA.No. 1629 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RP.120/2007 Dated 02/11/2007 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.30124/2005 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. 2. PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENSE ACCOUNTS (PENSION) ALLAHABAD. 3. OFFICER I/C RECORDS E.M.E. RECORDS, SECUNDERABAD - 21. BY ADV. SMT.MOLY.E.V., CGC RESPONDENT(S): --------------- K.P. RATHNA LATHA, W/O.T.K.GOVINDAN UNNY CHEROOD KALAM, KELATH PAKAVATH HOUSE THIRUVALLWAMALA, PATTIPARAMBA P.O. TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & KURIAN JOSEPH,J. ------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1629 of 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. The respondents, Union of India and the Defence, have filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 7-3-2006 in W.P.(C)No.30124/2005 setting aside the order of the respondents/appellants refusing to pay family pension to the writ petitioner. 2. The respondent/petitioner is the widow of an Army person who was discharged in the year 1984. After discharge he was employed in LIC from 1987 till he died in the year 1997. It is not in dispute that the deceased husband of the petitioner was receiving pension from the Army till his death and only after the application of the petitioner-widow to pay family pension, the impugned order refusing to give pension is passed. W.A.No.1629 of 2009 -:2:- 3. The main contention of the respondents before the learned single Judge and this court is that as per the Pension Regulations for the Army and especially Regulation Nos.219 and 222, as the petitioner was receiving family pension from the LIC she is not entitled for the second pension. A perusal of the said Regulation shows that a person is not entitled for the family pension only if he is in receipt of another pension from Government. Similar is the provision in Regulation 222 (a), which reads as follows:- “A family pension will not normally be granted if and for so long as an individual is in Government employment or is in receipt of another pension from Government.” A bare reading of these Regulations clearly indicate that in order to disentitle a person from receiving pension he must be in receipt of a pension from the Government. Admittedly LIC employment is not a Government service and as such receipt of family pension from LIC by the petitioner shall not come in the way of the petitioner receiving family pension from the Army. W.A.No.1629 of 2009 -:3:- Considering this aspect and especially the law declared in this regard by this court in the case of Union of India v. Elsy John, decided on 6th October 2008 in W.A.No.1946/2008, we find the learned single Judge was justified in granting the pension. Hence we find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. S.R.BANNURMATH, Chief Justice KURIAN JOSEPH, Judge ahg. BANNURMATH, C.J. & KURIAN JOSEPH,J. --------------------------- W.A.No.1629 of 2009 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 5th August, 2009