IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16858 of 2005(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.J. MARIYAMMA, AGED 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT KURUNJAMKULATH HOUSE, 1000 ACRE, DEVICOLAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER (PENSION SANCTION) OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER (ACCOUNT CLOSING UNIT), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOTTARAKKARA. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 16858/05. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD.29.7.03. P2. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD.18.12.04 BY VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLATHOOVAL. P3. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.23.3.05 FROM KSEB. P4. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.1.3.05 FROM R1. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 16858 of 2005 ================== Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a 78 year old destitute lady. Her father P.V.Joseph, was an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board. On his death, the petitioner's mother, Rebeka Joseph, and the widow of the deceased employee was granted family pension. In 1971, the petitioner got married to one Jacob Puthanparambu. After a few days of matrimony, the said Jacob deserted the petitioner and never came back. Ever since then the petitioner was living along with her parents entirely depending on them with no other source of income. On the death of the father, the petitioner was depending on her mother who was receiving the family pension. The mother also died on 27.11.2004. On the death of the mother, the petitioner applied for family pension, since the petitioner was living in abject penury. But citing Rule 71 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, which defines family for the purpose of pension rules, on the ground that under Rule 71 only unmarried/divorced/widowed daughters are included as family, the petitioner's application for pension was rejected by Exts.P3 and P4 communications. The petitioner is challenging the same in this writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner, she should be treated as a w.p.c.16858/05 2 divorced/unmarried daughter in so far the her matrimony lasted only for a few days and her husband left her permanently thereafter never to come back. Therefore, according to the petitioner, if she had filed an application for divorce, she would certainly have been a divorced daughter. She did not even have the income to sue for a divorce. The stand adopted by the respondents is hyper-technical and therefore, in order save a poor destitute 78 year old lady from destitution, a lenient view may be taken and the respondents may be directed to pay the petitioner family pension, is the prayer of the petitioner. 3. This is opposed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Electricity Board, who would submit that sympathy cannot change law and when the Rules specifically prescribe that only unmarried/ divorced/widowed daughters are only included as family for the purpose of family pension, this Court cannot overlook the statutory provisions and direct payment of family pension to the petitioner, whose husband is still alive. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The fact that the matrimony of the petitioner lasted for a few days is not disputed. It is not disputed before me that for all these 38 years, the husband has never returned. It is also not disputed before me that the petitioner has along been living dependent on her father and later her mother. The very object of paying family pension w.p.c.16858/05 3 is to see that the family of the pensioner does not become destitute. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, I am inclined to take a lenient view. Such situation would warrant a conclusion that practically the petitioner is either a divorced daughter or an unmarried daughter. In that view, I am of opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, family pension can be given to the petitioner to save her from destitution without making it a precedent for future. Accordingly, Exts.P3 and P4 are quashed. The respondents are directed to pay family pension to the petitioner prospectively. The petitioner would not be entitled to any arrears. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge