Kerala High Court
A.Ammu vs State Of Kerala on 1 June, 2007
Author: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 17105 of 1997(J)
1. A.AMMU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.REGHUNATHAN,G.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :01/06/2007
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
O.P.NO.17105 OF 1997
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of June, 2007
JUDGMENT
The short issue in this original petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to liberalised family pension from the date of entitlement as per the scheme or from the date on which she had applied for such benefit.
2. Petitioner is the widow of late Sri.N.Govindan, who died on 18.11.1967. During his tenure, liberalised family pension scheme was not applicable to such persons. Such benefit was extended as per Ext.P1 scheme, with effect from 1.1.1986. It is not in dispute that she is entitled to pension under that scheme.
3. According to the petitioner, when she came to know about Ext.P1, she applied for consideration for being granted liberalised family pension. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner, having applied only on 3.9.1996, her entitlement will be with effect from that date only and not from 1.1.1986, the OP.17105/97 Page numbers date on which Ext.P1 scheme came into force, in spite of the fact that she was widowed on 18.11.1967.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid contention, the controversy is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be paid pension for the period from 1.1.1986 to 3.9.1996.
5. Entitlement to liberalised family pension or for any pension does not depend upon the date of application. It has to be on the basis of entitlement under the particular pension scheme. This is obviously, the law, as has been laid by this Court in Aisha Kunju v. Deputy Director of Education [2004(2) KLT 174]. I am in respectful agreement with the ratio of the said decision.
Under such circumstances, this writ petition has necessarily to succeed.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed quashing Exts.P3, P4 and P5 and directing that the respondents shall pay the petitioner arrears of family pension as per Ext.P1, from 1.1.1986 OP.17105/97 Page numbers to 3.9.1996. Though the petitioner has claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum, having regard to the fact that the judgment relates to the interpretation of the scheme and appreciation of the constitutional rights of the petitioner, it is directed that the aforesaid amount shall carry simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 3.9.1996 till the date of payment.
It is further directed that amounts as aforesaid shall be disbursed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN Judge kkb.
OP.17105/97Page numbers ======================= THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J O.P.NO.17105 OF 1997 JUDGMENT 1ST JUNE, 2007.
=======================