IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2010 / 27TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 23570 of 2007(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.R.JANAKY,W/O. M.S. GOPALAN, 65 YEARS, CHAKKUNNATH HOUSE, VENGANELLUR P.O., CHELAKKARA-680 586,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., FINANCE DEPT. (PENSION)THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E) KERALA OFFICE OF ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, D F O'S OFFICE, CIVIL LINE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 4. THE SUB-TREASURY OFFICER, CHELAKKARA SUB-TREASURY, CHELAKKARA P.O., THRISSUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.MUHAMMED FAZIL.M.P. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 23570/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE REVISION PENSION ORDER DTD.11.8.97. P2. COPY OF THE FAMILY PHOTO. P3. COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DTD.24.12.99 P4. COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DTD.17.12.99. P5. COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD.30.7.05 TO R3. P6. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DTD.24.8.05. P7. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.21.9.05 TO R3. P8. COPY OF THE LETTER OF R3 DTD.2.11.05. P9. COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD.5.12.05 TO R1. P10. COPY OF THE LETTER OF R1 TO R3 DTD.20.3.06. P11. COPY OF THE REQUEST BY R4 TO R2 DTD.11.4.07. P12. COPY OF THE ORDER OF CANCELLATION OF FAMILY PENSION DTD.24.5.07. P13. COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE DTD.15.10.09. P14. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD.7.10.09. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R1A. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.3.7.06 OF R1. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.23570 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T One M.S.Gopalan retired as a Deputy Ranger of the Machad Forest Range. Later, he died on 12.12.1999. Before his death, pension was sanctioned to him and Ext.P1 revised pension order was also issued, as per which, the petitioner was shown as the wife of Gopalan, entitled to receive family pension on the death of the said Gopalan. The service book and pension book of Gopalan showed the name of the petitioner as his wife and the legal nominee for receiving family pension after his death. But the respondents refused to pay the family pension to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.2000 on the ground that just before the death of Gopalan, i.e., 28 days before his death, a letter dated 15.11.1999 was sent by him to the 4th respondent stating that one Nalini Amma was his wife. According to the petitioner, said Nalini Amma was the wife of the elder brother of Gopalan and she died as early as on 29.6.1999. The petitioner's representation did not meet with success and, ultimately, by Ext.P12, the Accountant General's office informed the Sub Treasury Officer, Chelakkara Sub Treasury, that the petitioner cannot be paid family pension. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: w.p.c.23570/07 2 “(I) Issue writ of Certiorari quashing Exhibit P12 and its all further proceedings. (II) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay and disburse Family pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2000 with all consequential benefits applicable to the petitioner in respect of petitioner's late husband M.S.Gopalan, holder of the PPO TCR/12374. (III) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to revalidate Exhibit P1 and PPO No.TCR/12374 in respect of late M.S.Gopalan. (IV) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay interest at the rate of 12% @ (sic) for the arrears of pension accumulated w.e.f. 01.01.2000, to the petitioner, till the date of payment.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent taking the stand that an enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar proved that Nalini Amma was the wife of Gopalan and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to family pension. It is also stated therein that the concerned DFO has also reported that Nalini Amma was the wife of Gopalan. The learned Government Pleader points out that the petitioner herself has produced Ext.P3 death certificate of Nalini Amma, wherein, it is shown that Nalini Amma is the wife of Gopalan. 3. The petitioner would contend that the so-called letter written by Gopalan was not signed by him, but only his thump impression was put therein, which would show that it is a concocted document. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Strangely, although more than one report has been w.p.c.23570/07 3 referred to in the counter affidavit, the 1st respondent has not chosen to produce copies of any of them. The 1st respondent has not even chosen to produce copy of the so-called letter from Gopalan, which document would be a crucial document to decide the issue. I am therefore inclined to draw an adverse inference from the non- production of those documents. Admittedly, in Ext.P1 order sanctioning family pension, the petitioner is shown as the wife of Gopalan. The petitioner has produced Ext.P6 certificate from the Village Officer concerned certifying that the petitioner is the wife of Gopalan. The petitioner has, along with I.A.914/2010, produced Exts.P13 and P14 certificates. Ext.P13 is issued by the SNDP Sagha, Killimangalam East, certifying that the marriage of the petitioner and Gopalan was solemnised on 1.1.1969 as per religious rites, and her husband died on 12.12.1999 without remarriage. Ext.P14 is the certificate issued by the President of the Chelakkara Grama Panchayat, wherein it is certified that the petitioner was married to Gopalan, as per custom. The said Nalini Amma had died on 29.6.1999. That being so, it is difficult to believe that on 15.11.1999, hardly 28 days before the date of Gopalan, Gopalan would send a letter to the 4th respondent stating that Nalini Amma is his wife insofar as the same is absolutely of no consequence whatsoever since the Nalini Amma was no more on that date. None else comes forward on behalf of Nalini Amma claiming w.p.c.23570/07 4 that she was the wife of Gopalan. It is true that in Ext.P3 death certificate of Nalini Amma, Gopalan is shown as her husband. But that certificate is issued by Mundathicode Grama Panchayat, whereas Ext.P4 certificate of death of Gopalan was is issued by the Panjal Grama Panchahat. These discrepancies are sufficient to disbelieve Ext.P3. Over and above all, Gopalan himself had nominated the petitioner as his wife to receive family pension and the pension papers were processed accordingly only. Therefore, even if the so-called reports are there, I am inclined to believe the documents now produced by the petitioner to show that she was the wife of Gopalan. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to family pension as per Ext.P1 family pension sanctioning order. Accordingly, it is declared that on the death of Gopalan, the petitioner has become entitled to receive family pension. Arrears of pension shall be disbursed to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and the petitioner shall be continued to be paid family pension every month. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.23570/07 5