IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 WA.No. 2006 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9202/2010 Dated 19/03/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------ M.O.SUHARA BEEBI, W/O.LATE A.M.KUNJAMMU, SAL-BEE, AZHIVELIKKATHU VEEDU, EDAVANAKKAD P.O., EDAVANAKKAD VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERKULAM DISTRICT 2. THE TAHSILDAR (LA), NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO.1 OFFICE KAKKANAD - 682030. 3. THE TREASURY OFFICE, SUB TREASURY, NAYARAMBALA - 682509. 4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 5. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No.2006 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 19th March, 2010 in W.P.(C).No.9202 of 2010, the unsuccessful petitioner preferred the instant appeal. 2. The appellant is a retired Government servant, who is in receipt of pension on that count. The appellant appears to be an unlucky woman, who contracted two marriages successively, but unsuccessfully. The first one was terminated by the death of the husband and second one was legally dissolved. In the interregnum of the two marriages, the appellant was receiving family pension payable to the spouse of a deceased employee of the State of Kerala. However, on the remarriage of the appellant, such a payment was stopped as the relevant rule clearly provides that the pension is payable only so long as the recipient spouse remains unmarried. 3. In view of the termination of the second marriage, the appellant filed a representation before the Government praying that the payment of family pension to her in her former capacity as a widow of deceased employee be revived. WA.2006/10 2 4. Complaining that the State of Kerala is not taking any decision on such representation, the appellant approached this Court by way of the abovementioned Writ Petition, which was dismissed by the judgment under appeal. Hence the appeal. 5. Payment of family pension is a matter of policy of the State unlike the payment of pension to the retired employees, which is consistently held by the Court as a deferred payment of wages for the service rendered in the past. The State, as a matter of policy, chose to pay family pension in favour of the spouse of deceased employee only so long as such spouse retains such a status of being the widow of former employee of the State. The appellant has no legally enforceable right to claim that on the termination of the second marriage, her former status as widow of the deceased employee would revive. The learned Judge, in our opinion, rightly rejected the Writ Petition. We do not see any reason to entertain the Writ Appeal. The Writ Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. vgs