Ravindran, J.

The appellants are the respondents in W.P.(C)No.16858 of 2005. The respondent is the petitioner therein. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether the married daughter of a pensioner, whose marriage is subsisting, is entitled to payment of contributory family pension under Section VII of Part III of the KSR. The brief facts of the case are as follows.

2. The respondent is the daughter of late P.V. Joseph, who was an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board. He retired from service in the year 1985. Upon retirement he was paid pension and other terminal benefits. He expired in the year 1997 and thereupon family pension was paid to his wife and the petitioner’s mother Smt.Rebeka Joseph. She passed away on 27-11-2004. The petitioner thereupon moved the Kerala State Electricity Board claiming payment of family pension by submitting an application dated 17-12-2004. The Accounts Officer in the office of the Chief Engineer (HRM) declined the said request holding that as the petitioner is a married daughter she is not entitled to get family pension. Ext.P4 letter dated 1-3-2005 was thereupon sent to the Executive Engineer, the second respondent in the writ petition, with copy to the petitioner. The Executive Engineer was also directed to inform the petitioner accordingly. The Executive Engineer sent Ext.P3 letter dated 23-3-2005 to the petitioner informing her that she is not eligible for family pension, she being a married daughter of the pensioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed W.P.(C) No.16858 of 2008 in this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents to grant Family Pension to the petitioner with effect from the date of death of her mother, ie. 25.11.2004.

ii) call for the records leading to Ext.P3 and P4 and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, setting aside the same,

iii) declare that the petitioner is entitled for Family Pension, as she is widow within the meaning of Rule 90 of KSR Part III.

3. The petitioner contended that the grant of family pension being a welfare measure to wade out the family members of the deceased pensioner from penury, the petitioner, a daughter who was given in marriage but was deserted by her husband within a few days of the marriage, should be treated as an unmarried or divorced or widowed daughter. She contended that though she was married to Sri.Jacob in 1971, after a few days of the marriage he deserted her. She also contended that ever since her husband deserted her, she was depending on her father and later on her mother late Rebeka Joseph, for her sustenance.

4. The appellants resisted the wit petition by filing a counter affidavit. It was contended that as the petitioner was admittedly married to Sri.Jacob and the marriage has not been dissolved by a decree of divorce granted by a competent court, the petitioner cannot claim that she is an unmarried or divorced daughter of the pensioner. Relying on Rule 90(6)(e) of Part III KSR it was contended that unmarried daughters above the age of 25 years alone are entitled to family pension. By judgment delivered on 22-12-2009 the learned single Judge held that the petitioner should be treated as a divorced or unmarried daughter and family pension be paid to her. In that view of the matter Exts.P3 and P4 were quashed and the appellants were directed to pay family pension to the petitioner prospectively. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have filed this writ appeal.

5. We heard Sri.Ashok M. Cherian, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.K.P. Dandapani, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent. We have also considered the pleadings and materials on record. The fact that the petitioner had married Sri.Jacob is not in dispute. Though the petitioner claims and Ext.P1 indicates that ever since 1971 the pe