E.Thankamma vs Kerala State Electricity Board ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15309 Ker

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                       PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

          THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1943

                             WP(C) NO. 11412 OF 2020

PETITIONER:

               E.THANKAMMA
               AGED 78 YEARS
               W/O. LATE K K BHASKARAN, NO.52, MLRWA, NANDANAM, VETTIYAZHATH
               HOUSE, MUTTATHIL LANE, KADAVANTHARA P O, KOCHI-682020.

               BY ADV G.KRISHNAKUMAR



RESPONDENTS:

     1         KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD
               VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

     2         THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM)
               KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

     3         ACCOUNTS OFFICER
               (GENERAL PROVIDENT FUND), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,
               VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-650004.

     4         THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER(PENSION SECTION)
               KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-650004.

     5         THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
               ELECTRICAL DIVISION(MATTANCHERRY), THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-682005.

     6         THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
               ELECTRICAL DIVISION(MATTANCHERRY), THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-682005.

     7         MOLJIMOL K.S. @ MOL .G MOL.K.S.
               D/O.K.P.SHASIDHARAN, AGED 49, KALATHIL HOUSE, KOTTAMURI P O,
               THRIKKODITHANAM VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK,
               KOTTAYAM - 686105

     8         KRISHNAPRIYA RAJKUMAR
               D/O. LATE T RAJKUMAR, AGED 19, KALATHIL HOUSE, KOTTAMURI P O,
               THRIKKODITHANAM VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM-686105.

     9         STATE OF KERALA,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT POWER
               DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
 WP(C) NO. 11412 OF 2020

                                     2




            BY ADVS.
            SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC
            SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE
            SHRI.SREEDEV U



OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.07.2021,

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 11412 OF 2020

                                       3




                              JUDGMENT

The mother of late T. Raj Kumar, who was serving the Kerala

State Electricity Board (KSEB) as a Senior Superintendent has

approached this Court seeking that she be paid 1/3 rd of all the

retiral benefits due to her son, as also the amounts accrued to him

under the General Provident Fund, on the assertion that she is his

Class-I heir. The petitioner asserts that even though her position as

mother of late T. Raj Kumar grants her the privilege of being class-I

heir, Rule 30(2) of the General Provident Fund (Kerala) Rules,

denies her the said benefit; and consequentially she prays that said

Rule be set aside and the KSEB be directed to pay her 1/3 rd of the

amount accrued in the son's GPF account.

2. I have heard Shri. G.Krishna Kumar, learned counsel for

the petitioner; Shri. Surin, learned counsel appearing for

respondents 7 and 8; Shri. M.K.Thankappan, learned Standing

Counsel for the KSEB and the learned Senior Government Pleader -

Shri.P.M. Manoj appearing on behalf of the 9 th respondent-State of

Kerala.

3. As I have indicated above, petitioner has sought for a WP(C) NO. 11412 OF 2020

declaration that Rule 30(2) of the GPF (Kerala) Rules is

unenforcible in law, since it is repugnant to the Hindu Succession

Act, 1956 - having not recognised the mother of a late employee as

being Class-I heir entitled to the share of the amounts in the General

Provident Fund.

4. Even when I hear the petitioner and her learned counsel

Shri.G.Krishna Kumar on the afore lines, it becomes manifest that a

challenge to Rule 30(2) of the GPF (Kerala) Rules would be of no

consequence to the petitioner because late T. Raj Kumar is

conceded to have made a nomination favouring his wife, namely the

7th respondent, to accept the amounts under the GPF account and

that the KSEB has acceded to such nomination with the amounts

being disbursed to her.

5. As is well known, for requirement of reinstatement, a

nominee is a person entitled to accept the amounts on behalf of the

legal heirs, but may not be always able to retain it. As per the

principles of nomination, it is for the nominee to distribute the

amounts to the legal heirs, who are entitled to the same as per law.

6. In the case at hand, it is admitted that 7 th respondent has

accepted the entire GPF amounts from the KSEB, which accrued to WP(C) NO. 11412 OF 2020

her late husband T. Raj Kumar; and obviously, therefore, petitioner

will now have to sue her, if she is interested in any portion of the

same. This is because, this writ petition has been maintained

seeking a direction to the KSEB to release 1/3 rd of the GPF amounts

to the petitioner, but since this amount has already been paid to the

7th respondent, based on a valid nomination, it is ineluctible that

petitioner will now have to sue her daughter-in-law and grand

daughter, if any amounts are to be entitled to her.

7. It is in such context that challenge to Rule 30(2) of the

GPF (Kerala) Rules would be irrelevant for this Court to consider on

its merits at this time, because, if the petitioner is able to establish

her entitlement under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to any

portion thereof, it will be upto the competent Authority or the court

to take an appropriate decision thereon, since the Rule in question

only mandates how the amounts will have to be paid. Since the

payment in this case has been made based on a nomination and

since, that by itself would not, normally, cause any conclusion that

nominee is entitled to any part thereof, I am certain that petitioner

must now invoke the legal remedies, as are available to her.

In the afore circumstances and leaving open all civil remedies WP(C) NO. 11412 OF 2020

open to the petitioner, I close this writ petition, recording that

except the GPF, petitioner has been paid 1/3 rd of all other retiral

benefits entitled to late T. Raj Kumar.

SD/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE rp WP(C) NO. 11412 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11412/2020

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 7.5.2018 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 1.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO RTI APPLICATION.