N.Nalini vs Dr.V.Venu
2021 Latest Caselaw 15311 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
                    CON.CASE(C) NO. 951 OF 2021
  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17619/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
                         KERALA, ERNAKULAM
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.
          M.V.THAMBAN
          R.REJI
          ARUN BOSE
          N.SUNIL JOSEPH



RESPONDENTS:

    1     DR.V.VENU
          AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
          WORKING AS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE
          GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
          GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
          PIN-695001.

    2     VIGNESHWARI
          AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
          WORKING AS THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
          VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695033.

    3     G.SUDHARMINI
          AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
          WORKING AS THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E),
          KERALA, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.

          BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
 CON.CASE(C) NO.951/2021          2




            SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP




     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION    ON   22.07.2021,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO.951/2021                3

                                JUDGMENT

This contempt case has been filed by the

petitioner on the allegation that, even though

this Court had issued specific directions to the

respondents in the judgment dated 02.11.2020 to

pay the arrears of pension, this has been denied

to her through the order now issued by the

respondents on 30.04.2021, saying that same is

disentitled to her because she had not produced

the legal heirship certificate until then.

2. Shri.M.V.Thamban, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, asserted that the

order now issued by the respondents is bad in law

because it has been issued without hearing his

client and because it does not say how the arrears

of pension becomes disentitled to her merely

because the legal heirship certificate was

produced subsequently.

3. Noticing the submissions of

Shri.M.V.Thamban as afore, I passed the following

order on 13.07.2021, when this matter was

considered earlier:-

"When this matter was called today, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that Government had passed an order on 30.04.2021 in compliance with the directions in the judgment.

2. However, Shri.M.V.Thamban, learned counsel for the petitioner contested this, saying that the order now issued by the Government did not precede a hearing of his client; and further that though it is stated that there is a legal provision which prohibits payment of arrears of pension, except from the date of furnishing the legal heirship certificate, same has not been specified. He asserts that there is no such provision in law.

I, therefore, adjourn this matter to be called on 22.07.2021; within which time, the learned Senior Government Pleader will obtain instructions on these aspects."

4. Today, the learned Senior Government

Pleader, Shri.P.M.Manoj, submitted that the

respondents had issued the order on 30.04.2021,

granting the benefit of family pension to the

petitioner, but only from the date of the legal

heirship certificate, because there is nothing on

record to show that the petitioner was the legally

wedded wife of the late V.Sadasiva Panicker at the

time when he retired from service. He submitted

that the pension papers of late V.Sadasiva

Panicker shows the name of his son as the nominee

and therefore, that the respondents could not have

done anything else, but to issue the order on

30.04.2021, as it is presently worded.

5. Even though there may be some substance in

the afore submissions of the learned Senior

Government Pleader, the facts remains that, prima

facie, I cannot find any law which prohibits the

payment of arrears of pension to the widow until

such time as the legal heirship certificate is

produced. This certificate is, at the best,

evidence of her status as widow and obviously,

therefore, the respondents cannot say, in normal

circumstances, that the payment of pension will

start only from the date on which such certificate

is produced.

6. However, in this case there is one issue

which certainly requires a reconsideration, namely

whether the son of late V.Sadasiva Panicker is

available and whether the petitioner was his

legally wedded wife at the time when he retired.

7. At this juncture, Shri.M.V.Thamban,

learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that

the son of late V.Sadasiva Panicker is now missing

and has not been heard for a long period of time.

Taking note of the afore submissions, I

dispose of this contempt case directing the

respondents to withdraw the order issued by them

on 30.04.2021 and recording that they had agreed

to do so; with a consequential direction to them

to reconsider the entire matter, based on the

legal heirship certificate and after issuing

appropriate notice to the petitioner as also the

son of late V.Sadasiva Panicker, whose name is

reportedly shown in the pension papers as his

nominee.

I, however make it clear that if the son of

late V.Sadasiva Panicker does not respond to the

notice to be issued by the respondent in terms of

the afore directions, the said Authority will be

obligated to complete the proceedings and issue

appropriate orders in spite of his absence, as

expeditiously as is possible, but not later than

three months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment.

Needless to say, after the afore exercise is

completed, if any arrears of pension is found

eligible, then the same shall be paid to the

petitioner without any avoidable delay, but not

later than two months thereafter.

This contempt case is closed; however, leaving

liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court

again with a fresh one, if these directions are

also not complied with.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/22.7

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 951/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

Annexure -1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.11.2020 IN WPC NO.17619/2020 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

Annexure -II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2021 IN R.P.NO.11/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.