The petitioner retired from service as a Primary Department Teacher on October 31, 1996. She is now living in New York in the United States of America with her husband and daughter.

2. This writ petition has been filed through her power of attorney holder. Her grievance is that arrears of pension payable to her for the period from November 1996 to September 2000 have been denied to her on the ground that she failed to draw the same when it fell due. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Exts.P3 and P4 orders passed by the Government in this regard are totally illegal and unsustainable. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P3 and P4 orders. There is a further prayer to issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ order or direction to respondent No.1 to accord sanction to release the arrears of pension in terms of the relevant rules.

3. It is not in dispute that the monthly pension became payable to the petitioner from November 1996. It is also beyond controversy that petitioner did not draw the pension from November 1996 till September 2000. According to the petitioner, she was constrained to be away from India because of some problem in the family. She had to join her husband and daughter in America. The daughter was undergoing study in Nursing in the States and because of some problems that she faced there, petitioner was constrained to go to America and join her husband and daughter.

4. On September 14, 2004 the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 application before the respondent requesting them to release the entire arrears of pension including Pensioners’ Festival Allowance amounting to Rs.1,77,639/- to her for the period from November 1996 till September 2000. In the said application, she had admitted that she had been receiving pension from October 2000 onwards through Bank. She had also stated the reasons why she could not draw pension for the earlier period. But by Ext.P3 order dated November 30, 2004 the Government rejected the above request. It appears that the petitioner had moved the Government again in this connection. The Government had passed Ext.P4 order explaining the reasons as to why the Government did not deem it fit to allow the prayer for payment of arrears of pension as requested by the petitioner. It also appears that the petitioner and her husband who is also a retired Government servant, had approached the Kerala Lok Ayuktha for the same relief. By order dated October 27, 2005 the Lok Ayuktha dismissed the complaint since it was submitted before the said authority that the petitioner wanted to take appropriate steps in accordance with law before other forum.

5. Learned counsel submits that there is no justification on the part of the Government in refusing to release the arrears of pension. It is contended by the learned counsel that Rule 136 of Part III K.S.R. does not empower the authority to forfeit arrears of pension if it had not been drawn by the pensioner. Learned counsel submits that the Government can release the pension in appropriate cases. The failure on the part of the petitioner to draw the pension was due to reasons beyond her control. The Government ought to have kept in view the peculiar circumstances which prevented the petitioner from drawing it. It is further contended by the learned counsel that Ext.P4 order was passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner.

6. Rule 126 of Part III K.S.R. enables a pensioner to draw pension through an authorized agent, if permitted by the Government. Rule 129 postulates that “a pensioner who resides in the State may draw his pension through a duly authorized agent possessing a legally valid Power of Attorney who must produce a life certificate as referred to in rule 126 and 127 on each occasion unless the duly authorized agent has executed an indemnity bond to refund overpayment in which case he has to produce the life certificate as aforesaid at least onc