IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 24783 of 2007(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.T.CHANDRIKA, NIKETHANAM, ALENCHERRY, YEROOR P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 312. BY MR.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. MR.A.D.SHAJAN, MR.P.B.AJOY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DEFENCE PENSION DISBURSING OFFICER, KOLLAM. 4. SUB TREASURY OFFICER, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DIST. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1, R2, R4 & R5 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER MR.MANOJKUMAR, R3 BY SMT.MOLY.E.V., CGC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 24783 of 2007-A =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.A.D.Shajan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Manojkumar, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 and Smt. E.V. Moly, the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent. 2. The petitioner, the wife of an Ex-serviceman, was being paid family pension as per the rules. The family pension was revised with effect from 1-1-1996. The petitioner did not claim revised family pension and due to oversight, the respondents did not pay revised family pension to the petitioner. This was detected on audit by the Director of Treasuries and it was set right. Thereupon, the petitioner was sanctioned revised family pension with effect from 1-1-1996. Arrears of family pension was also paid and it was received by her in October, 2006. This writ petition was thereafter filed on 14-8-2007 contending that though the petitioner is entitled to receive the revised family pension with effect from 1-1-1996, it has not been paid to her. 3. When this writ petition came up for hearing on 23-6-2008, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the entire arrears of W.P.(C) No. 24783/2007 2 revised family pension have been paid to the petitioner and and that she is also being paid revised family pension every month. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereupon prayed that he may be permitted to amend the writ petition by incorporating a prayer for award of interest. The writ petition was thereafter amended seeking a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the delay in payment of arrears of family pension. 4. The pleadings disclose that the petitioner was unaware of the fact that she was entitled to receive revised family pension with effect from 1-1-1996. The non-payment of revised family pension to the petitioner with effect from 1-1-1996 was detected on audit by the Director of Treasuries. The mistake was rectified and petitioner was paid arrears of family pension. Thereafter, she caused Ext.P7 lawyer’s notice to be issued claiming interest on the arrears of enhanced family pension from 1-1-1986 to 30-8-2006. Thereafter, this writ petition was filed stating that though the petitioner is entitled to receive revised family pension with effect from 1-1-1996, the same has not been paid to her. When this Court was informed that arrears of revised family pension was paid even before Ext.P7 lawyer’s notice was caused to be issued by the petitioner, the petitioner prayed for and was given an opportunity to amend the writ petition incorporating the claim for interest. W.P.(C) No. 24783/2007 3 In the writ petition, the case set out by the petitioner is that she has not been paid revised family pension. It was after the respondents entered appearance and pointed out that the arrears of revised family pension have already been paid and that she is also being paid revised family pension every month that the petitioner sought permission to amend the writ petition to incorporate a claim for interest. Since the petitioner has approached this Court with a false claim, I am of the opinion that her conduct disentitles her to claim interest. I accordingly held that the petitioner is not entitled to interest for the delayed payment of arrears of family pension as claimed by her. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. mn.