While working as Forest Guard one Murukesan who is the son of petitioners 1 and 2 and the brother of the third petitioner died on 9.1.2010. Subsequently, the petitioners submitted Ext.P3 representation on 18.2.2011 with the requests to disburse the retrial benefits due on account of death of the said Murukesan to petitioners 1 and 2 and to grant appointment under Dying-in-harness scheme to the third petitioner. The 4th respondent informed the first petitioner that the aforesaid requests could not be acceded to. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed mainly with the prayers to quash Ext.P5 and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to take a decision on Ext.P3 and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioners and the 5th respondent. The further prayer is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to disburse the death-cum-retirement benefits to petitioners 1 and 2 and to appoint the third petitioner under Dying-in-harness scheme in Government service.

2. There is no dispute with regard to the status of the fifth respondent as the legally wedded wife of the deceased Murukesan. The contention is that the said Murukesan died of snake bite and at that point of time the 5th respondent was carrying. Shortly after the death she got it aborted at Co-operative Hospital, Palakkad, it is contended. According to the petitioners, the 5th respondent was not inclined to participate in the obsequies of Murukesan. Evidently, as per letter No.E-50/10 dated 29.1.2010 the 5th respondent was informed to submit necessary applications and documents including Death Certificate, legal heirship certificate, for getting insurance benefits, appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme and also the retrial benefits. However, according to the petitioners, on account of the aforesaid actions on the part of the 5th respondent she is not entitled to get the Death-cum-retirement benefits and petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to get the same and the third petitioner is entitled to get appointment under Dying-in-harness scheme, on account of the death of the said Murukesan.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on Rule 67 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (for short ‘the Rules’) to contend that the petitioners are entitled to get the DCRG and such other benefits. Rule 67(i) and (ii) of the Rules are relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in this writ petition. They read thus:

“67. If any employee who has completed five years of qualifying service dies while in service, a gratuity not exceeding the amount specified in Rule 68 below may be paid to the person or persons on whom the right to receive the gratuity is conferred under Section V or, if there is no such person, to the surviving members of the family as defined in Rule 71 in the manner indicated below:-

(i) If there are one or more surviving members of the family as in items (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 71, it may be paid to all such members, other than any such member who is a divorced/widowed daughter in equal shares.

(ii) If there are no such surviving members of the family as at (i) above, but there are one or more surviving divorced/widowed daughters and/or one or more surviving members of the family as in items (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of Rule 71, it may be paid to all such members in equal shares.”

The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Rule 67(ii) to contend that the petitioners are entitled to DCRG benefits. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader contends that what is relevant is Rule 67(i).

5. I may now, advert to the relevant provisions. Rule 67(i) would make it clear that if there are one or more surviving members of the family of the deceased as in items (a), (b), (c), and (d) of Rule 71, the DCRG benefits have to be paid