IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 OP.No. 37384 of 2002(A) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ GOPAKUMAR, S/O. LATE SADASIVA PANICKER, AGED 29, GOPAKUMAR BHAVAN, GANDHIPURAM, SREEKARYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.S.VINODKUMAR, SRI.M.C.MADHAVAN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. SMT. N. NALINI, ROHINI NIVAS, KADAVILA, PANGAPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, S.N. COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, KOLLAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR R2 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss O.P.NO.37384/2002 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER'S FATHER LATE V.SADASIVA PANICKER. P2: COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE DTD. 27/03/1975 ISSUED BY THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, PARASSALA DEVASWOM. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 30/09/2002 IN COMPLAINT NO.993/2001 PASSED BY THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.43/99 OF THE 2ND ADDL.MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1(B): COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, PANGAPPARA. R1(C): COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE UNDER RULE 90 (13) PART III, KSR. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 37384 of 2002 ================== Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the son of late Sadasiva Panicker in his first wife. The 1st respondent is the second wife of late Sadasiva Panicker. Late Sadasiva Panicker was a Government servant. The 1st respondent filed a complaint before the Kerala Lok Ayukta complaining that she, despite being the second wife of late Sadasiva Panicker, is not being paid family pension. On the same, the Lok Ayukta submitted Ext.P3 report before the Government as required under Section 12 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act holding that the 1st respondent is entitled to draw family pension as the widow of late Sadasiva Panicker. That report is under challenge in this original petition. 2. The petitioner raises two contentions. The first is that the Lok Ayukta does not have power to deal with the complaint filed by the 1st respondent insofar as even in respect of pension, only complaints from the Government servant could have been entertained and not by the widow of the Government servant. The second is that insofar as the Government servant himself had submitted before the Government that he does not have a family and his pension papers have been processed accordingly, nobody can come forward with a claim for family pension claiming that she is the widow of the deceased o.p.37384/02 2 Government servant. 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Under Schedule II to the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, the Lok Ayukta has jurisdiction to take action relating to claims for pension, gratuity, provident fund, or any claims which arise on retirement, removal or termination of service. Those provisions do not restrict the power to entertaining complaints filed by the Government servant alone, but any claims, which arise on the retirement can be entertained by the Lok Ayukta. Therefore, a widow can certainly raise her claim which arises on retirement of her husband and later his death before the Lok Ayukta and for entertaining the same, the Lok Ayukta certainly has jurisdiction. 6. As far as the second contention is concerned, I do not think that a Government servant can on his own decide whether family pension should be paid to his family. The family pension is being paid for protection of the family of the deceased Government servant. That does not form part of the estate of the deceased employee so as to enable him to decide as to who should be or who should not be given family pension. That is a statutory benefit conferred on the family of the deceased Government servant and the Government servant cannot decide that no family pension should be paid to anybody after this o.p.37384/02 3 death. That being so, I do not find any merit in the second contention also. Admittedly, the 1st respondent was the second wife of the father of the petitioner and admittedly, the petitioner has no claim for family pension. As such, the petitioner does not lose anything in view of Ext.P3 report of the Kerala Lok Ayukta. In the above circumstances, I do not find anything wrong with Ext.P3 report of the Lok Ayukta. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 37384 of 2002-A ================== J U D G M E N T 6th July, 2010