Kerala High Court
N. Nalini vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 1ST MAGHA, 1942
RP.No.11 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 17619/2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17619/2020(B) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER:
N. NALINI
AGED 75 YEARS
W/O. LATE V. SADASIVA PANICKER, RESIDING AT ROHINI
NIVAS, KADAVILA, PANGAPPARA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686631.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
SRI.R.REJI
SMT.THARA THAMBAN
SRI.B.BIPIN
SRI.ARUN BOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033.
3 THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
KERALA, M.G. ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691008.
5 THE PRINCIPAL
SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, KOLLAM, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 691001.
6 THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
RP.No.11/2021 IN WP(C).17619/2020
2
SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL - SR.GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.No.11/2021 IN WP(C).17619/2020
3
ORDER
This application has been filed seeking
review of the judgment dated 02.11.2020
asserting that Rule 120 of Part III of the
Kerala Service Rules (KSR for short) has no
application to the facts of this case, because
the family pension had already been ordered to
be paid to the petitioner by the Kerala
Lokayuktha as early as in the year 2002.
2. Even when I hear Shri.R.Reji, learned
counsel for the petitioner, on the afore
lines, the fact remains that I have not
considered affirmatively as to whether Rule
120, Part III of the KSR has any application;
and in fact, I have recorded in the judgment
that it is the case of the petitioner that it
does not.
3. Obviously, therefore, what is
intended was that the Government must consider
this issue and pay arrears of pension to the
RP.No.11/2021 IN WP(C).17619/2020
petitioner, either under the sanction of Rule
120 of Part III of the KSR or otherwise.
4. The apprehension, therefore, of the
petitioner that the judgment of this Court
will be misinterpreted by the Authority to
decline payment of arrears cannot appeal to
me, since I am certain that if she is entitled
to the same, it will have to be paid with or
without the sanction as afore mentioned.
In the afore circumstances clarifying the
above, I close this review petition without
any further orders.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/23.1.2021
