Kerala High Court
Thulasikunjamma K vs The Accountant General (A & E) on 22 July, 2008
Author: K.T.Sankaran
Bench: K.T.Sankaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6466 of 2008(T)
1. THULASIKUNJAMMA K.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E),
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
3. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.C.CHERIAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :22/07/2008
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN,J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.6466 of 2008 T
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the widow of late R.Kesavan Unnithan, who retired from service in July, 1954. Pension was sanctioned to Kesavan Unnithan. The petitioner's husband died on 2.7.1984. The petitioner submitted application for sanction of family pension. As per Ext.P2 pension payment order, family pension was granted to the petitioner with effect from 4.6.1997.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she is entitled to get family pension from 1.1.1986, the date on which the Scheme for "Family Pension to the families of the Government employees who retired from service or died before 1.4.1964 or are otherwise not covered by the Family Pension Scheme of 1964."
3. This Court, in Aisha Kunju v. Deputy Director of Education (2004 (2) KLT 174) held as follows:- WP(C) No.6466/2008 2
"4. A combined reading of Rr.110, 114 and 115 of Part III KSR would show that it is not only the retiring employee but the head of office and the competent authority to sanction pension, have a duty to see that appropriate steps are taken while the employee is in service, in the matter of pension on retirement. The employee has to submit the formal application in Form No.II and it is for the Head of Office to prepare the employee to become a pensioner, not only mentally but also officially. Even the formal application form has to be sent to the employee, if he is a non-gazetted employee. There is no dispute that late Jaggafar was a non-gazetted employee. The third proviso to R.110 casts a duty on the competent authority to relax the provision regarding submission of formal application and sanction the pension in the case of an employee retiring from life while in service without submitting the formal application. If that be the position, the Rule necessarily has to be understood as casting an obligation on the competent authority in the matter of sanction of pension in the case of those employees dying after retirement, but without submitting a formal application for pension. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that though the employee submitted an application, the same was defective. Therefore, in the eye of law the WP(C) No.6466/2008 3 employee died without submitting a formal application. As already stated above, the competent authority has a duty to see that an employee on retirement gets his pension. It is now a well settled principle that right to pension is part of the guarantee under Art.21 of the Constitution of India."
It was also held in Aisha Kunju's case (supra) that right to family pension being part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, there is no justification in limiting the same to the date of submission of the application. The Scheme should be made applicable with effect from the date on which it was introduced, viz., 1.1.1986.
In view of the decision referred to above, the petitioner is entitled to relief No.(i) in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is partly allowed in respect of relief No.(i). There will be a direction to the respondents to sanction and disburse the arrears of family pension due to the petitioner for the period from 1.1.1986 to 4.6.1997. The arrears of pension shall be disbursed within a period of two months.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE.
cks