IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 11167 of 2009(S) -------------------------- OA.80/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAVITHRI, W/O.(LATE)K.K.KRISHNANKUTTY, KOOTTATHARA HOUSE, PIATHURUTHU, ELAMKULAM, KADAVANTHARA (P.O), KUMARANASAN NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIVISIONAL PERSONAL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI. ADV. SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 11167/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY RATION CARD ISSUED BY THE CITY RATIONING OFFICER. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION NOMINATION FORM SUBMITTED BY K.K.KRISHNANKUTTY DATED 01.11.02. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 01.11.02. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE VOTERS LIST OF ERNAKULAM ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMKULAM DATED 10.04.07. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF CAT, ERNAKULAM IN OA NO.80/08 DATED 11.11.08. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR DATED 19.03.09. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF OA NO.80/08 FILED BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 11167 OF 2009-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 4th June, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is the widow of late K.K.Krishnankutty, who was a Gang Mate working under the respondents. Their marriage was solemnized on 11.1.1981 and two children are born out of that wedlock. Her husband died in harness on 11.1.2007. She applied for family pension and other terminal benefits due to her late husband. Since the deceased employee did not nominate her as the wife for the purpose of receipt of family pension, the respondents declined her request. It was also found that another lady's name was shown in the statement given by the said Krishnankutty. The petitioner submits, it was a mistake and Krishnankutty did not have any other wife. The Railways also do not have a case that a second wife came forward, seeking the terminal benefits of the deceased employee. But, they insisted for production of a succession certificate from the competent authority, for granting the terminal benefits of the deceased employee, to the WPC No.11167/09 2 petitioner. She approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.80/2008. The said O.A was disposed of with the following directions: “3. Heard Shri.P.K.Madhusoodanan for the applicant and Shri.Varghese John on behalf of Shri.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil for the respondents. The facts about the employment of the deceased employee are not disputed. As the deceased employee had not indicated the name of the applicant as his wife, the respondents cannot be faulted for not granting the family pension. It has been stated in para 13 of the reply statement that if the applicant produces a Succession Certificate from a competent Court of Law duly impleading the other persons and the Railways, her claim for family pension may be examined further. In view of the aforesaid submission by the respondents, this O.A is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the grant of family pension as and when the applicant submits a valid heirship certificate from competent Court to establish her right as the legally wedded wife to receive the family pension. With the aforesaid directions, the O.A is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.” The petitioner is aggrieved by the direction to produce the succession certificate. She says, she has obtained legal heirship certificate, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P7. She also relies on Ext.P1 Ration Card, wherein she is shown as the wife of the said Krishnankutty. Ext.P4 electoral roll with photographs of the electors will also show her as the wife of the said Krishnankutty. In view of the above materials and in the absence of a rival claimant coming forward, claiming the terminal benefits of the deceased WPC No.11167/09 3 employee, the insistence of production of a succession certificate is unnecessary, it is submitted. The petitioner prays, the respondents may be directed to release the terminal benefits due to her late husband, to her and grant family pension to her, based on the legal heirship certificate produced by her. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the respondents also. The learned counsel would submit that no third party has come forward, claiming the terminal benefits of the deceased employee. In view of the above position, we feel that the direction of the Tribunal to release the terminal benefits and family pension to the petitioner on production of the succession certificate, should be modified as on production of legal heirship certificate. We do so. It is clarified that this judgment will not affect the rights, if any, of the third parties or the power of the civil court to adjudicate their claims. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR JUDGE. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. nm/ WPC No.11167/09 4