IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37139 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JANAKI.K.K, D/O. K. KRISHNAN NAIR, KALLIYADAN KUNNUBRATH HOUSE, KOLACHERY.P.O, KOLACHERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE (B) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA SOUTH SUB DISTRICT, TALIPARAMBA.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. THE HEADMASTER, KOLACHERY A.U.P. SCHOOL, KOLACHERY.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, KANNUR. SHRI.A.J.VARGHESE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.37139 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an unmarried daughter above 25 years of age, of a deceased pensioner. She claimed family pension in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 90 Part-III, K.S.R. Though death of her father was on 18/08/1973, enclosing eligibility certificate dated 11/10/2006, the petitioner made her application on 18/11/2006. By Ext.P9 dated 10/10/2007, family pension was sanctioned with effect from 11/10/2006, that is the date of eligibility certificate. 2. The petitioner claims that she became eligible for pension, on the basis of Ext.P1 Government Order with effect from 01/04/1998. According to her, irrespective of the date of the eligibility certificate, in view of Ext.P1 she should be paid the family pension with effect from 01/04/1998, and therefore, claims payment of arrears for the period from 01/04/1998 to 11/10/2006. 3. According to her, this right of the petitioner cannot in any manner be affected by Exts.P3 and P4. Insofar as Ext.P3 is concerned, it is stated that Ext.P3 is only a circular and it cannot dilute the rights conferred by Ext.P2. Insofar as Ext.P4 Government WP(C) No.37139/2008 -2- Order is concerned, it is stated that the order is dated 01/03/2007 and is effective from 01/01/2007. It is contended that the petitioner had made her application on 18/11/2006, and that therefore her case cannot be governed by Ext.P4. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Accountant General v. Shyson George (2005(2) KLT 137), and contended that the date of the eligibility certificate is irrelevant when determining the entitlement for family pension. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. 5. At the outset, I must confess my inability to accept the contentions of the petitioner. Admittedly, though the death occurred way back in 1973, the claim for family pension was raised by the petitioner only on 18/11/2006 by enclosing eligibility certificate dated 11/10/2006. A reading of Ext.P1 shows that the grant of family pension to a person like the petitioner is subject to the satisfaction of the conditions mentioned therein. These conditions were satisfied by the petitioner only by making the application on 18/11/2006 enclosing the eligibility certificate dated 11/10/2006. Family pension could have been granted only on satisfaction of those conditions. If that be so, her entitlement can WP(C) No.37139/2008 -3- only relate to the period subsequent to the certificate produced by the petitioner. In this case, family pension has been sanctioned by Ext.P9 with effect from the date of the eligibility certificate, and such a step cannot be faulted. 6. The learned counsel contended that Ext.P4 is inapplicable to the petitioner's case, since the said order is effective from 01/01/2007 and as the petitioner had applied prior to that date. True, the petitioner had applied prior to 01/01/2007, that her claim was sanctioned by Ext.P9 order dated 10/10/2007. Any claim that is settled subsequent to Ext.P4 will have to be governed by the conditions of Ext.P1. If that be so, the contention regarding the inapplicability of Ext.P4 cannot be accepted. 7. Insofar as the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, that case dealt with the eligibility of a mentally retarded dependent, who unlike an unmarried daughter above 25 years, is eligible for pension, and therefore, such a case was not governed by Exts.P3 or P4. In these circumstances, I am not in a position to agree with the contentions raised. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg