IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 4177 of 2005(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.SREEDEVI, AGED 36, W/O. LATE S.SOMASEKHARAN, SREEKUMARA VILASAM VEEDU KUZHIYAN VIA. PUNNAMODU, KALLIYOOR, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT T.C.QUARTERS KOTTAKUNNU, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN (SREEVALSAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C. NO. 4177/2005. -------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDING DT. 13-10-2003. EXT.P2 COPY OF PENSION PAYMENT ORDER. EXT.P3 MEMO DT. 3-8-2004. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: -------------------------------------- EXT.R1(a) COPY OF REQUEST DT. 29-4-2004. EXT.R1(b) JOINT REQUEST DT. 6-7-2004. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 4177 of 2005 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 28th November, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is presently working as a conductor in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. Her husband Sri. Somasekharan was also an employee of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. Her husband died on 4-2-2002. Thereafter, the petitioner and her two minor children were being paid family pension. Subsequently, that was stopped on the ground that the petitioner had remarried. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction commanding the respondent to release the family Pension to this petitioner and her two children along with arrears of pension since August, 2004 forthwith. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondent to settle the Provident Fund Account and disburse the amount immediately or within a time limit which may be prescribed by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent to the effect that the mother of the petitioner submitted a complaint to the Managing Director of the Corporation informing that the petitioner is living with one Appukuttan an empanelled driver of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and therefore the retirement benefits on account of the death of Somasekharan shall not be disbursed to the petitioner. The Corporation is stated to have conducted an enquiry. They now submit that the petitioner herself had submitted Ext. R1(b) request for allotment of convenient schedule in which she herself has stated that Sri. Appukuttan, driver, is her husband. According to the Corporation, Ext. R1(b) would conclusively prove that the petitioner has remarried after the death of her husband Sri. Somasekharan, and therefore family pension was rightly discontinued. W.P.C. No. 4177/2005 -: 2 :- 3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit stating that in Ext. R1(b) the last sentence stating that her husband is Sri. Appukuttan was included only under compelling circumstances. According to her, her superior officer insisted that unless she added that sentence also, convenient schedule would not be allotted to her. The petitioner submits that she has not remarried and that Sri. Apukuttan is not her husband. The petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to explain the circumstances before discontinuing payment of the family pension. The petitioner submits that had she been given an adequate opportunity to explain the circumstances, she could have proved to the satisfaction of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation that she had not remarried and she is still entitled to continue payment of family pension. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The fact that the petitioner and her two children were being paid family pension after the death of Sri. Somasekharan is not disputed before me. That being so, before stopping family pension to the petitioner, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of being heard. Even otherwise, assuming that the petitioner had in fact remarried, that would not be a reason for denying family pension due to the minor children of late Somasekharan. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The respondent shall issue a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the family pension being paid to her on the death of her husband Sri. Somasekharan should not be discontinued giving reasons for the proposed action. The petitioner shall be given an opportunity to file her objection to the same. Thereafter, the respondent shall decide the matter after affording an opportunity of W.P.C. No. 4177/2005 -: 3 :- being heard to the petitioner. The entire procedure shall be completed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/