Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 50 (KER)

Mrs. P. B. Ameena v. State of Kerala

2000-01-27

C.S.RAJAN

body2000
Judgment :- The petitioner's son who was an employee in the Irrigation Department, died in harness on 12-9-1994. The family pension due to the petitioner was not disbursed to her so far. The petitioner approached this Court earlier by filing O.P. No. 7001 of 1998 which was disposed of by judgment dated 6-4-1998 with a direction to consider and pass orders on the representation filed by the petitioner. Accordingly Exhibit P-5 was passed rejecting the petitioner's request. But it has been stated in Exhibit P-5 that as per the existing rules the petitioner's request for family pension merits no consideration since the eligibility of the member of the family for family pension in this case had ended with the marriage of the daughter of the deceased employee. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for family pension. A petition to review the decision in Exhibit P-5 was rejected as per Exhibit P-6 and thereafter by Exhibit P. These orders are under challenge in this Original Petition. According to the petitioner, under Rule 90(6-A) of Part-III K.S.R. the petitioner is entitled to get family pension as the parent of the deceased employee. The petitioner was solely depending on the deceased son for her maintenance and she has no other source of income or support for maintenance. This is evident from Exhibit P. certificate issued by the Tahsildar. The contention of the petitioner seems to be on the basis of sub-rule (6) of Rule 90 of Part-III K.S.R. which defines 'family' for purposes of these rules, which reads as follows : "(6) "Family" for purposes of those rules, means the following relatives of the employee, namely, (a) Wife in the case of a male employee, (b) husband in the case of a female employee,(c) sons, (d) unmarried daughters, (e) sons/unmarried daughters adopted legally before the retirement of the employee, (f) father, (g) mother, (h) judicially separated wife, in the case of a male employee, and (i) judicially separated husband in the case of a female employee." Note I to the above rule says that if there are no surviving members of the family as in items (a) to (c) above, Government may sanction/family pension to the members referred to in items (C and (g) subject to the conditions prescribed in sub-rule (6-A). The petitioner comes in item (g) in sub-rule (6). The petitioner comes in item (g) in sub-rule (6). Sub-rule (6-A) is as follows : "(6-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (6) above - (1) contributory family pension will be admissible to the parents (father/mother) of the deceased Government employee if they were solely dependent on the deceased for maintenance and they have no other source of income or support for maintenance, and even in cases where the parents have an independent source of income of less than Rs. 4800 per annum and they are partly dependent on the deceased for maintenance and there are other extenuating circumstances, subject to the following conditions :- (i) The employee was unmarried at the time of his/her death or if married, he/she had no wife/husband or minor children at the time of death. (ii) The parents of the deceased Government employee have no other living sons/daughters who are well-placed and the husband/wife, as the case may be of the beneficiary is also not well placed in life. (iii) Only one family pension will be payable to a person under this rule even if there may be claim for more than one family pension on account of death of more than one son or daughter. xxxxxx xxx"The petitioner's son has a daughter who was married just after 40 days of the death of the son. She was not receiving any family pension because she was not eligible to receive the family pension under sub-rule (6). Only unmarried daughters are entitled to receive pension until she attains the age of 25 years or married or starts earning for livelihood whichever is earlier. Thus, in this case daughter of the deceased employee did not get any family pension. Rule (6-A) starts with the non-obstante clause. The petitioner is the mother of the deceased Government employee. She was solely dependent on the deceased for maintenance. She has no other source of income or support for maintenance. The entitlement of receiving family pension is also subject to three other conditions mentioned in sub-rule (6-A). The employee must be unmarried at the time of the death or if married, he had no spouse or minor children at the time of death. The petitioner's son was not survived by his widow. He had no minor children also at the time of his death. The employee must be unmarried at the time of the death or if married, he had no spouse or minor children at the time of death. The petitioner's son was not survived by his widow. He had no minor children also at the time of his death. Second condition is that the parents of the deceased employee have no other living children who are well-placed. The petitioner has no other son or daughter who is well-placed. The last condition is that only one family pension will be payable to a person under this rule. Thus, this is a case where the petitioner satisfies the requirements of sub-rule (6-A) of Rule 90 of Part-III K.S.R. The reasoning in Exhibit P-5 that eligibility of the member of the family for family pension in this case has ended with the marriage of the daughter of the deceased employee is absolutely unsustainable in law. Obviously, the Additional Secretary, who passed Ext. P-5 order has not read sub-rule (6-A) of Rule 90 of Part-III K.S.R. Moreover, the logic behind the statement that the eligibility ceases with the marriage of the daughter of the deceased employee cannot be comprehended. There is nothing in Rule 90 to show that the eligibility of the member of the family for family pension will end with the marriage of the daughter of the deceased employee.The reasoning in Exhibit P-6 that the benefit of Rule 90 (6-A) is, available to the petitioner only if the Government servant is unmarried is also legally unsustainable. Again I venture to state that the Additional Secretary to Government, who issued Ext. P-6 letter has not cared to read the various sub-rules of Rule 90 of Part-III K.S.R. Exhibit P-7 repeats the reasoning in Exhibits P-5 and P-6. A number of instances have come to the notice of this Court wherein the officers sitting in the Secretariat while dealing with the human problems like pension etc. shut their eyes to the reality and the mandatory provisions contained in the Rules. The trend is always to refuse the benefits to the parties and to somehow negative the request made by employees especially in pension matters. This is another glaring example of inhuman attitude shown by an officer in the rank of Additional Secretary. shut their eyes to the reality and the mandatory provisions contained in the Rules. The trend is always to refuse the benefits to the parties and to somehow negative the request made by employees especially in pension matters. This is another glaring example of inhuman attitude shown by an officer in the rank of Additional Secretary. Even though it was pointed out to the above officer by review petitions that the petitioner was entitled to get family pension under sub-rule (6-A) of Rule 90 of Part-III K.S.R., he refused to consider the same in the proper perspective. Under these circumstances, I think the petitioner is entitled to cost from the Government. Therefore, I quash Exhibit P-5, P-6 and P-7. The respondents are directed to pay family pension to the petitioner which is admissible under the rules within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is also entitled to get cost from the Government which I fix as Rs. 2, 000/-. Original Petition is allowed as indicated above. Petition allowed.