The legal effect of a person becoming a nun is that she ceases to have any connection with the members of the natural family, and therefore, nominations of the Mother Superiors were valid under the Kerala Service Rules, Part III.

1. These two original petitions are considered and disposed of together as a common question arises for consideration in them. In O. P No 3184 of 1974 the facts are the following The petitioner is the Mother Superior of Adoration Convent, Kanjiramattam. This Convent is one branch of a larger family of Sisters of the Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament governed by norms of Canon law and statutes approved by the Head of the Church. At an early age one Mariakutty Thomas became a nun and became a member of this Convent. She took the temporal vows in 1944 and the perpetual vows in 1949. After joining the order she was appointed as an L. P, School Assistant in L. F. L. P. School, Kanjiramattam. In due course she was promoted and appointed as High School Assistant in the school run under the management of the Diocese of Palai. She continued in this job till her death on 24 61972. As per R.3 of Chapter XXVII B of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, teachers in aided schools are also governed by the Kerala Service Rules, Part III, as regards retirement benefits. According to R.80, Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, every officer on completion of five years of qualifying service should nominate a person to receive any gratuity that may be sanctioned under R.75 and 77 and any gratuity to which she is eligible under R.74 and not paid to her before death. In terms of the Rules she nominated the Mother Superior, Adoration Convent, Kanjiramattam as the person entitled to receive any gratuity that may be sanctioned by Government in the event of her death in service or after retirement without receipt of such benefits. In that nomination she had specifically mentioned that she has no family in terms of R.79 of the Rules and therefore she is nominating the Mother Superior under R.80. After the death of Sister Mariakutty Thomas the petitioner herein applied before the D. E. O., Kottayam, to get the death-cum-retirement gratuity due to the deceased. Alongwith the application she also forwarded a heirship certificate from the Tahsildar, Kottayam, to the effect that the petitioner is the person entitled to receive the amount due. This certificate was issued after due investigation and enquiry and publication in the Gazette of the request made by the petitioner for a heir-ship certificate. The District Educational Officer, Kottayam, by his order dated 18-6-1973 accorded sanction to the petitioner to receive the gratuity amount due to the deceased. But, the Accountant General objected to the disbursement of the amount on the ground that the nomination of the petitioner is not in order as the nominee does not come under the term 'family' defined in R.79 of Part III, K S. R. Following this the District Educational Officer, Kottayam, informed the Headmistress of the school that the petitioner's request for payment is inadmissible as per the K. S. R Ext. P5 dated 8 41974 is the copy of the order of the District Educational Officer. The order of the Accountant General and the consequential order of the D. E. O. rejecting the petitioner's claim for payment are challenged in this original petition as unsustainable in law for the reason that the deceased on joining the order and becoming a nun ceased to have any family as defined in R.79, Part III, K. S. R. and therefore she was entitled to nominate the petitioner to receive D. C. R. gratuity to which she is eligible. In this connection the petitioner does not challenge that the deceased has blood relations specified in R.79 as members of the family. But, according to the petitioner, consequent on Mariakutty Thomas becoming a nun and joining the holy Order, category of persons specified in R.79, Part III, K. S. R. have ceased to be her relatives included in the definition of the term 'family' in the Rules. The question for consideration is whether this contention is sustainable in law.

2. The same question arises in O. P. No. 3249 of 1975. The petitioner therein is the Mother Superior of St. Josep