Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing Aisha Kunju vs Deputy Director Of Education on 17 March, 2004

State Of Kerala Represented By The vs Lucy Lonappan on 3 August, 2009

employees who retired prior to 1.4.1964, the Government have also the power to modify it. In exercise of that power, Ext.P7 order dated 24.6.1992 was issued. The provision to grant family pension to the applicant, only with effect from the date of submission of the valid application, cannot be said to be an arbitrary, irrational or unjust provision. The contentions to the contrary are unsustainable. The decision in Aisha Kunju v. Deputy Director of Education,(supra), does not lay down the correct legal position.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Noushad S vs Kerala State Road Transport ... on 20 September, 2006

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to rule 118 of Part III KSSR and contended that by virtue of the provisions contained thereunder, if the W.P.(C). No.17880 of 2016 9 Government employee has executed a nomination in the prescribed form and the nomination subsists, the Head of the Office/Department or the Audit Officer, who is the custodian of the nomination shall, on receipt of the death report of the employee, send to the nominee(s) a letter in Form 6 A together with a copy in Form 6 asking for necessary documents and on receipt of the same, shall process the same in accordance with law. Learned counsel also drew my attention to sub-rule (2) of the said rule, which reads, if the employee has not executed a nomination in the prescribed form or in cases where the nomination made does not subsist, the Head of Office or the Department has a duty to make necessary enquiry with respect to the surviving members of the family eligible to receive the death-cum-retirement gratuity and family pension and draw up the pension in accordance with the same. Therefore, it is clear from the said provision also, there was a duty cast upon the respondent Corporation to ensure the payment of family pension after W.P.(C). No.17880 of 2016 10 making necessary enquiry in terms with the nomination or other wise and pay the pension in terms of the same. So also, I find that, in view of the mandatory requirement under the provisions of Part II Service Rules, which is not modified in any manner, Ext.P7 Government Order may not have any bearing to the issue in question. A learned Single Judge of this court had occasion to consider the question with respect to the payment of family pension in Aisha Kunju v. Deputy Director of Education [2004(2) KLT 174] and the Apex Court in S.K.Mastan Bee v. General Manager, South Central Railway and another [(2003) 1 SCC 184] and held that the issue with respect to family pension eminates from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and there is no justification in limiting the same to the date of submission of the application.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.M. Jalaja vs The Kerala State Road Transport ... on 3 May, 2011

7. Therefore, taking into account the relevant circumstances, it can be seen that, the restriction with respect to the submission of application under Note 5 to Rule 90(6) will not apply to the wife, and the persons mentioned in clauses (a) to (c) of sub-rule 6 of rule 90, and whenever the application is made by the wife, the respondent Corporation is bound to pay the family pension from the next month following the death of the employee, or which thus means, it is the bounden duty of the employer to pay the family pension to the said category on information of the death of employee, in accordance with the Rules. Learned counsel has also invited my attention to the judgment of this court in Aisha Kunju v. Deputy Director of Education [2004(2) KLT 174], wherein it was held that, the right to family pension is a right emanating from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, there is no justification in limiting the same to the W.P.(C). No.23152 of 2016 8 date of submission of the application.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lalitha.M.P vs The Kerala State Road Transport ... on 4 July, 2025

(d), (e), (g) and (k) of sub-rule (6) and does not apply to the spouses who are included against clauses (a) and (b). It is hence submitted that there can be no justification for denying family pension from 01.08.2019 in the case of the petitioner. Reliance is placed on Ext.P9 judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(C).No.23152 of 2016. The learned Judge after considering the Rule held that whenever an application is made by the wife, the respondent Corporation is bound to pay the family pension from the next month following the death of the employee. The Court held that it was the bounden duty of the 2025:KER:49100 WP(C) NO. 26518 OF 2024 7 employer to pay the family pension to the said category on information of the death of the employee in accordance with the Rules. The learned Judge placed reliance on the judgment in Aisha Kunju vs. Deputy Director of Education [2004 (2) KLT 174] wherein it was held that, the right to family pension is a right emanating from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and there is no justification in limiting the same to the date of submission of the application. I am in respectful agreement with the dictum laid down in Ext.P9 judgment.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - T R Ravi - Full Document

Baburaj V.R vs State Of Kerala on 3 November, 2025

In the judgment in Aisha Kunju v. Deputy Director of Education [2004 (2) KLT 174] this Court has held that right to family pension is a part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore there is no justification in limiting the same to the date of submission of application. In the present case, the petitioner is a physically handicapped person. He is disabled and unemployed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that limiting grant of family pension to the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2019 is highly arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioner is eligible to get family pension from 01.10.2014.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - N Nagaresh - Full Document

The Accountant General vs Smitha.C on 3 April, 2007

2. The only point that arises for consideration in the present writ appeal is as to whether the respondent is entitled for the Family Pension from the date of death of her mother, which is 13/9/98 or whether she will be entitled for such Family Pension only from 16/9/99, the date on which the eligibility certificate was issued. The learned Single Judge following the decision in Aisha Kunju v. Deputy Director of Education (2004(2) KLT 174) WA 246/2007 : 2 : held that the respondent is also entitled for payment of Family Pension from the date of death of the mother.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - P R Raman - Full Document

State Of Kerala vs Mary Varghese on 29 May, 2008

The petitioner prayed for family pension from the date it became due, namely when the petitioner's husband died. The petitioner's husband died on 7.7.1953. The family pension scheme was implemented in 1986, The right of the petitioner to get family pension is not disputed. According to the Government, in this case the application for family pension was filed even before the scheme was framed. The learned single Judge applying the decision in Aisha Kunju v. Deputy Director of Education - 2004(2) K.L.T. held that the right to family pension is being part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution, there is no justification in limiting the same to the date of submission of the application. In this case, even before the scheme was framed the application was filed. After the scheme also application was filed.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - J B Koshy - Full Document
1   2 Next