JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed by a widower aged 84 years seeking to quash Ext.P3 order passed by the Tahsildar, Taluk Ofice, Taliparamba, Kannur District declining the certificate in contemplation of sub-rule 6A of Rule 90 of Kerala Service Rules enabling the petitioner to secure contributory pension on account of death of his son. The basic material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows; 2. Petitioner is a widower aged 84 years. His son one M.V.Ravindran while working as Section Officer under the service of the 1st respondent died on 11.5.2004. Late M.V.Ravindran was married and his wife, Smt.K.C.Rooha was granted the family pension as per Ext.P1 order dated 15.5.2008 by the 1st respondent University. Later K.C.Rooha re-married on 30.12.2010 and thereupon the University issued Ext.P2 proceedings dated 8.2.2011 ceasing the family pension granted to the wife. Petitioner has three more children and two of them are working as Class IV employees in Kannur and Calicut University respectively and one son as Police Constable. 3. According to the petitioner, since he is very old and has various diseases, is not able to support himself and is not receiving any pension and there is also no source of income. Thereupon petitioner made an application in the year 2012 to the University and on the direction of the University, petitioner has submitted an application seeking a certificate as provided in the Annexure -I format as per sub-rule 6A of Rule 90 of Part III Kerala Service Rules before the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Taliparamba. However, the certificate was declined by the Tahsildar as per Ext.P3 order assigning the reason that, petitioner has got three other children apart from late M.V.Ravindran and petitioner is living under the protection of other children and therefore, he is not entitled to get the certificate. 4. Tahsildar has filed a detailed counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner and justifying the stand adopted in Ext.P3 order. Along with the counter affidavit, Ext.R3(a) report of the Village Officer is also produced from where it is discernible that, the Village Officer has conducted an enquiry and found that petitioner was a dependant of his son M.V.Ravindran, however, consequent on the death of M.V.Ravindran petitioner is being protected by other children. Along with the counter affidavit, Ext.R3(a) report of the Village Officer is also produced from where it is discernible that, the Village Officer has conducted an enquiry and found that petitioner was a dependant of his son M.V.Ravindran, however, consequent on the death of M.V.Ravindran petitioner is being protected by other children. Ext.R3(b) is a legal advice given by the District Government Pleader dated 3.6.2013 to the Tahsildar, Taliparamaba, wherein it was advised that since the petitioner is being maintained by other children, petitioner is not entitled to get the family pension. 5. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.P.M.Manoj and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 6. The predominant contention advanced by learned counsel for petitioner is relying upon sub-rule 6A of rule 90 of Part III Kerala Service Rules, which read thus: “[(6A)]Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (6) above. (1) Contributory family pension will be admissible to the parents 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.15,000/- per annum and they were 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.” 7. On a reading of the said provision, it is clear that, the parents of the deceased Government employee in order to secure the benefits of the contributory family pension should not have living sons/daughters, “who are well placed”. It is also clear and evident that, the independent source of income provided as per Rule 6A originally at Rs.6,000/- was substituted from 1.7.2011 by Rs.15,000/- and later as per Government Order dated 28.4.2015 the amount was enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. It is also clear and evident that, the independent source of income provided as per Rule 6A originally at Rs.6,000/- was substituted from 1.7.2011 by Rs.15,000/- and later as per Government Order dated 28.4.2015 the amount was enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. It is also submitted that, going by Annexure 1 format the requirements are:- (i) was solely dependent on the deceased employee for his/her maintenance and that he/she has no other source of income or support for maintenance/partly dependent on the deceased employee for his /her maintenance and that his/her independent income from all sources is less than Rs.4,800/- per annum (ii) has no other living sons/daughters who are well placed in life and the husband/wife, as the case may be of the beneficiary is also not well placed in life and (iii) is not in receipt of Family Pension on account of the death of any other son/daughter. 8. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for petitioner, even going by the provisions of part III discussed above, there is no findings rendered by the Tahsildar that, the rest of the children of petitioner are well placed and merely because the children are employed, that will not dissuade the petitioner to secure the contributory family pension in terms of law. 9. On the other hand, learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the Tahsildar has passed Ext.P3 order after securing a report from the concerned Village Officer,, who has reported that petitioner is living under the protection of rest of the children and therefore, he is not entitled to get the family pension. 10. I have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar. In my considered opinion, the term “well placed” denoted under sub-rule 6A and Annexure -I format has a very vital significance. The phraseology 'well placed' is incorporated in the provision with basic object of ensuring that the children should be getting sufficient income not only for the protection of their family, but also to meet the requirements of the dependant. Therefore, adequate and sufficient force shall be ascribed to “well placed” and mere protection provided by the children will not take away the substantive right conferred under the rule to a dependent. Therefore, adequate and sufficient force shall be ascribed to “well placed” and mere protection provided by the children will not take away the substantive right conferred under the rule to a dependent. Moreover, going by the amendments made to the bench mark source of income from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.30,000/- as is specified above, it is a clear indication that, the children should be sufficiently placed in any employment or other avocation getting substantial income, ensuring that the dependant is able to carry on his life in a smooth and efficient manner, rather than struggling for day to day maintenance. Petitioner is an 84 year old person and one can clearly visualize that, at that age, apart from the money required for day to day maintenance, reasonable amount may be required to tide over old age diseases and protecting health, also by extra nourishment for his survival. It is an admitted fact that one daughter and son are Class IV employees of Kannur and Calicut Universities respectively and another son is a Police Constable. It is also an admitted fact that the other children have their families. Even the Village Officer has not reported that, the children are well placed so as to protect the interest of the petitioner in contemplation of the law discussed above. The law intends not mere existence, by somehow adjusting from the meagre income of other children, but the intention is to protect the life and liberty of the dependant. So also, it is clear that, the University has granted the Contributory Pension to the wife of the deceased son, M.V.Ravindran and she has lost the benefit since she was re-married. To consider the issue logically, if she did not re-marry, she would have got the benefit of Contributory Family Pension throughout her life. However I do not think that the Tahsildar has exercised the power conferred on him understanding the real implication of the law. 11. Learned counsel for petitioner has invited my attention to a judgment of this court in Karunakaran v. State of Kerala [ 2011(3) KLT 124 ] which has dealt with almost an identical issue and held as follows in paragraph 5: “5. Still I have to consider whether the language of sub-r.(6A) would totally disentitle the parents from receiving family pension on the re-marriage of the wife. Still I have to consider whether the language of sub-r.(6A) would totally disentitle the parents from receiving family pension on the re-marriage of the wife. If there was no wife, naturally the parents would have been entitled to family pension automatically. The parents are included as part of the family along with the wife, and denial of family pension to the parents, if the wife is living, is obviously because of the assumption that the wife would look after the parents of the deceased Government servant also. The ultimate object of the same is to see that the parents do not go destitute on account of the death of their son. If the wife re-marries, the position as far as the parents are concerned is that of no wife mentioned in sub-r.6A(1). In the said circumstances, I am of opinion that the said rule should be read down to mean that the parents would be entitled to the family pension if the wife remarries and becomes disentitled for family pension. I am of the further opinion that by adopting such an interpretation, the Government does not incur any additional expenditure insofar as what the Government pays to the parents is the family pension which was hitherto being paid to the wife, which would have been continued to be paid, if the wife had not re-married. In that view, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P4. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is set aside. If the 1st petitioner is eligible for family pension but for the interpretation put by the 4th respondent on sub-r.6A(1), the 4th respondent shall authorise payment of family pension to the 1st petitioner. If the 1st petitioner has to comply with any other conditions for receiving family pension, the 5th respondent shall inform the 1st petitioner accordingly within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the same, the 1st petitioner shall comply with the said directions and submit the necessary papers before the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent shall forward the same to the 4th respondent- Accountant General, within two weeks of the 1st respondent complying with the formalities, if any. On receipt of the same, the Accountant General shall pass orders authorising the family pension to the 1st petitioner and the respondents shall pay the same to the 1st petitioner, within another month from the date of receipt.” 12. On receipt of the same, the Accountant General shall pass orders authorising the family pension to the 1st petitioner and the respondents shall pay the same to the 1st petitioner, within another month from the date of receipt.” 12. So also India is a welfare State and the Government is duty bound to look after the well being of the citizens and it is taking into account the said duty, the benefits like family pension and other pensionary benefits are introduced to protect the welfare, well being, and interest of elderly and other family members due to unforeseen circumstances consequent to the death of the incumbent on whom the beneficiary was dependent upon. So also in accordance with Part IV of the Constitution of India dealing with the directive principles of State Policy, the State is enjoined with a duty for securing social order for the promotion of welfare of the people. Article 38(1) clearly specifies that, the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life. The State has also a duty, in particular to strive to minimise the inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations. Article 39 prescribes that, the State shall in particular direct its policy towards securing:- (a) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood. (e) that the health and strength of workers, men and woman, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength. 13. That apart Article 41 enumerates that, the State shall within the limits of its economic capacity and development make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want. 13. That apart Article 41 enumerates that, the State shall within the limits of its economic capacity and development make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want. So much so Article 47 deals with duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health, which stipulates that the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties. 14. Therefore, taking into account the circumstances and the law discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that, Ext.P3 order passed by the Tahsildar declining certificate in contemplation of the law is illegal and arbitrary, liable to be interfered with by this court. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P3 and direct the Tahsildar to issue the certificate in the format prescribed as per Annexure -I, at the earliest and at any rate within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the petitioner, bearing in mind that petitioner is an 84 year old senior citizen, and on production of the certificate from the Tahsildar, the University shall take immediate steps without any further delay to complete the process and pay the contributory family pension to the petitioner, at the earliest possible time, with all arrears due from the date of the application submitted by the petitioner. Writ petition is allowed accordingly.