IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30736 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ K.V.NARAYANI, W/O.LATE K.V.NARAYANAN, NEDUVAPURAM, KARIVELLUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, TALIPARAMBA. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE, KASARAGOD. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 30736 OF 2008 (H) ==================== Dated this the 20th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner states that she was the dependant of her deceased son, who was a Lecturer in the Government College, Kasaragod. Though the petitioner has two of her sons employed as a peon and Assistant in the Kerala State Financial Enterprises, petitioner submitted an application for family pension following the death of her lecturer son. Along with the application, it is stated that she had submitted Ext.P1 as well. 2. On receipt of the application, she was issued Ext.P2 enclosing Exts.P3 and P4 and requiring her to produce certificate in the form as indicated in Ext.P4. She submits that on the ground that two of her sons are employed and are well placed and that therefore, she is ineligible for the benefit of family pension, the 3rd respondent is refusing to even accept application. It is in this background, the writ petition has been filed. 2. Though several contentions have been raised, I do not think, at this stage an examination of those contentions are necessary. Petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent is refusing to even accept application for the certificate in the nature of Ext.P4. In my view, if the petitioner has made an attempt to submit an application as stated by her, WPC 30736/08 :2 : it is the duty of the 3rd respondent to accept and consider the application and if he is satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to a certificate, issue the same. If his decision is otherwise, the 3rd respondent is expected to pass order to that effect as well. 3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that if the 3rd respondent has not accepted the request of the petitioner for a certificate in the nature of Ext.P4, it will be open to the petitioner to submit necessary applications to the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon without delay. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent along with a copy of this writ petition for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp