IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 WA.No.1019 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.9423/2002 Dated 23/11/2006 .................... APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:- ----------------------------------------------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSION), ALLAHABAD. 3. RECORD OFFICER, OIC RECORDS, MADRAS REGIMENT ABHILEKH KARYALAYA RECORDS, THE MADRAS REGIMENT, WELLINGTON (NILGIRIS)-643 231. 4. THE DEFENCE PENSION DISBURSING OFFICER AND LOCAL AUDIT OFFICER (ARMY), THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL. ADV.SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 5 & 6:- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. LALEETHAMMA, W/O. LATE K.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, KRISHNA BHAVAN, THEKKUMKARA ERAVOOR, ARYANAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. W.A.NO.1019/2007 -2- 2. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT OFFICER, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE ASSISTANT PERSONNEL OFFICER (PENSION) IN CHARGE OF DY. CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER (PFC), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM R2 & R3 BY SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN- SC.K.S.R.T.C. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.1019 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 15th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.9423 of 2002 dated 23-11-2006. (2). Sri.Parameswaran Nair, learned Assistant Solicitor General as usual very fairly submits that, the issues raised in this writ appeal is covered against the appellants, in view of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Visalakshy (1998 (2) KLT 797). In the said decision, this Court observed as under: “ In the instant case respondents 1 to 4 have no case that the petitioner is not entitled to pension as per the Army family pension regulations. The only objection is the grant of family pension by the 4th respondent under the family pension scheme. There is no case for the respondents that the deceased husband of the petitioner was a civil servant or employed in any civil service before the age of superanuation after leaving the Army and in the absence of any other objection regarding the claim put forward by the petitioner for family pension under the Army regulations, she cannot be denied the benefit of family pension under the Army Regulations. It is made clear that the entitlement of the petitioner to receive family pension under the Army regulations shall not stand in the way of the W.A.No.1019/2007 -2- petitioner receiving any other benefit under the family pension scheme introduced under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, particularly in view of the stand taken by the 4th respondent and the additional 5th respondent that the payment of benefit under the said scheme is in addition to any other benefit for which the employees or claimants under them are entitled to from previous employment including military service. It is to be remembered that it is based on such a definite understanding that deductions were made from the wages of employees including the deceased husband of the petitioner. As such the 4th respondent is estopped in law from denying the petitioner the benefit under the family pension scheme under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act.” (3). In view of the law laid down by this Court, we are of the opinion that, none of the reliefs sought for by the appellants could be granted by us. Accordingly, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE MS