IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 29444 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.R.RAKHI, AGED 18 YEARS,D/O.LATE V.K.RAGHAVAN, VALIYAKUNNATHUPUTHE PURAYIL HOUSE, MECKALADY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), M.G.ROAD,P.B.NO.5607,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-39. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, SUB TREASURY,ANGAMALY. 4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.29444 OF 2009 (A) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The claim in this writ petition is for family pension. 2. Sri.V.K.Raghavan, working as Villageman in Mattoor Village Office expired on 9.10.1995. It is stated that he had initially married Smt. K.C. Pennamma. According to the petitioner, in that wedlock there were no issues and therefore, he contracted a second marriage with Smt. Ammini. In the second wedlock, apart from the petitioner, a son was also born. 3. On the death of Sri. Raghavan, only 50% of the family pension was paid to Smt. K.C. Pennamma. Thereupon, smt. Pennamma and the petitioner's mother smt. Ammini, the 2nd wife of the deceased, together filed O.P.No.2273/03 before this court contending that the first wife should be given the entire family pension. This court considered the matter and by Ext.P1 judgment held that since the second marriage was not legal, Smt. Pennamma should get full family pension. Accordingly payment was made. WPC.No.29444/09 :2 : 4. While so, smt. Pennamma expired on 16.7.2007 and Ext.P2 is the death certificate. Thereupon the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application claiming family pension, on the basis that she is the daughter of the deceased Raghavan and therefore is eligible for family pension. Petitioner also submits that her brother Sri. V.R. Rajesh has already been given employment, under the compassionate appointment scheme, recognizing him as the son of the deceased. 5. Ext.P4 is a legal heirship certificate issued by the Tahsildar, after due enquiry and publication in the gazette, certifying that the petitioner and her brother are recognized as the legal heirs of the deceased. The name of the petitioner's mother is not included in Ext.P4 certificate presumably for the reason that the 2nd marriage was not a legal one. 6. The District Collector passed Ext.P5 order holding that the petitioner is the sole dependent of the deceased without any independent income and that being an unmarried daughter, she is entitled to family pension. On that basis family pension was sanctioned to the petitioner on condition that necessary certificates will be produced. WPC.No.29444/09 :3 : 7. It is stated that the matter reached the Accountant General and that thereupon, by Ext.P6, the Accountant General raised the objection that in view of the fact that the petitioner's mother was not the legally wedded wife of the deceased Raghavan, the petitioner is not eligible for family pension. It was at that stage, this writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P6 order of the Accountant General and seeking a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to be paid family pension. 8. Rule 90 of Part III KSR provides for family pension. 'Family' has been defined in Rule 90(6) and 'unmarried daughter' is included at clause(e) there of. It was accordingly that on the death of the Government employee, Smt. Pennamma was getting family pension. Once the wife goes out of the scene, if there is any other legal heir included within the definition of family, then that legal heir is eligible to receive family pension. It is on this basis, petitioner contends that with the death of Smt. Pennamma, she being the unmarried daughter of the deceased has become eligible for family pension. The question is whether in the absence of a legal marriage between her parents petitioner can claim family pension. WPC.No.29444/09 :4 : 9. Counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Rameshwari Devi. V. State of Bihar & Ors. (2002(2) SCC 431), in which the Apex Court has upheld the claim for family pension of a child born in a second marriage, which has also been held to be a void marriage in view of Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act. On facts there does not appear to be any difference between the case of the petitioner and the case dealt with by the Apex Court. Further, after due enquiry and gazette publication, petitioner has been certified to be a legal heir of the deceased. Her brother has been given appointment under the dying in harness scheme. The District Collector has also sanctioned family pension to her. In these circumstances, the fact that marriage between the parents was not a legal marriage, will not defeat the claim of the petitioner for family pension. 10. Therefore, I direct that the 4th respondent shall pass fresh orders in the matter, in the light of the findings in this judgment. It is directed that the 4th respondent shall deal with the matter as above and orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. WPC.No.29444/09 :5 : Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 4th respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/