IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 1051 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.33059/2003 Dated 05/07/2007 .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE COMMANDING OFFICER, 89 ROAD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, GREF, C/O. 99 APO 2. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, GREF RECORDS, DIGHI CAMP, PUNE 15. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PENSIONERS WELFARE, THIRD FLOOR, LOK NAIK BHAVAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI - 03. 4. PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE, ACCOUNTS (PENSION), ALLAHABAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ----------------------- ANNAMMA KUNCHANDY, W/O.SHRI.KUNCHANDY VAIDYAN, THOPPIL VADAKKATHIL, PADINJATTUKARA P.O., THEVALAKKARA, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.M.V.THAMBAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.1051 OF 2008 & C.M.APPLN.476 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 4th June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Koshy,J . This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.33059/2003. The learned Single Judge ordered to pay family pension to the parents of the deceased. The widow has remarried and she relinquished her claim in favour of the mother of the deceased. Considering the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in S.K.Mastan Bee v. The General Manager, South Central Railway (JT 2002 (10) SC 50) and the decision on the identical views in Kunhami v. Union of India (2006 (2) KLT 661), writ petition was allowed declaring that parents of the deceased, who died in service, are entitled to family pension. This appeal is filed for condoning the delay of 285 days. The reason for condoning the delay is stated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit, which is as follows: W.A.No.1051 OF 2008 & C.M.APPLN.476 OF 2008 2 “4. The certified copy of the judgment was received on 16.10.2007. The issue of challenging the judgment was discussed in the department and with the higher authorities. This took some time due to the unavoidable administrative exigencies and it was decided to challenge the judgment by filing a Writ Appeal before this Hon'ble Court. It was felt that filing of the writ appeal is necessary.” These reasons can be stated in any other cases and valid and satisfactory reasons are not stated for condoning the long delay of 285 days. Hence delay condonation petition is dismissed, and consequently, appeal is also dismissed. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE prp