IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 26TH BHADRA 1932 OP.No. 19206 of 2001(J) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AZIYA UMMA, W/O.A.JAILANI, EX-POINEER PNR, GREF (EX.G.S.NO.143471), RIYAS MANZIL, CHINGOLI.P.O., KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.K.INDU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (PEN A & AC), NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER ROADS, KASHMIR HOUSE, DHQ P.O., NEW DELHI-110 001. 3. THE OFFICER COMMANDING 107, ROAD CONSTRUCTION CY (GREF), C/O 99 APO, PUNE. 4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (RECORDS), RECORDS OFFICE, 'GREF' DIGHI CAMP, PUNE-15. 5. THE CHIEF CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS, (PENSION) G3, VII SECTION, ALLAHABAD. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN, ADDL.CGSC THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.No. 19206/2001 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.22.5.90. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.30.7.98. P3. COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P4. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.6.8.98 BY R3. P5. COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DTD.10.11.99. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R3A. COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT FORM. B. COPY OF THE SANCTION OF TERMINATION OF SERVICE. C. COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD.6.11.82. D. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.23.2.89. E. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.14TH JUNE, 89. F. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.6TH AUGUST, 98. G. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.22ND MAY 1990. H. COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 19206 of 2001 ================== Dated this the 17th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's husband was enrolled in the General Reserve Engineering Force on 19.7.1969 as a Pioneer. After 3 years of service, on 31.7.1972, he was discharged by declaring him as surplus. He was reappointed on 6.11.1982 and worked as such till his discharge on 15.8.1989. The petitioner's husband put forward a claim for pension, which was negatived by Ext.P1 order. The petitioner's husband died on 13.11.1993. The petitioner filed application for family pension, which was rejected on the ground that the petitioner's husband did not have 10 years of minimum service, which is the qualifying service for pension and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to family pension. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's husband had 9 years 11 months service and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to family pension in respect of her husband's service, since under Rule 49(3) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, fraction of years equal to 3 months and above should be considered as one year of service and, therefore, the petitioner's husband had actually 10 years' of qualifying service. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed taking the contention that the petitioner's husband had only 9 years 6 months and one day of o.p.19206/01 2 service. But, according to the petitioner, the petitioner's husband had 9 years and 9 months and 21 days of service, even excluding the period of leave, as contended by the respondents. 3. At the time of hearing, both the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents were absent. Therefore, the matter was considered on the basis of the pleadings on record. 4. On a consideration of the pleadings, I am inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner's husband had 9 years, 9 months and 21 days service. That being so, under Rule 49(3) of the Rules, the same can be considered as 10 years' qualifying service. Accordingly, the petitioner's husband had minimum service for pension. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to family pension also. Accordingly, this original petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner arrears of pension due to the petitioner's husband and family pension, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The respondents shall continue to pay family pension to the petitioner every month. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge o.p.19206/01 3 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 19206 of 2001-J ================== J U D G M E N T 17th September, 2010