Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.29316/2013. The appellant married Shri Khader Kunjumuhammed, a pensioner of the erstwhile Dock Labour Board, on 18.9.1994. The pensioner expired on 18.9.1998 and since his first wife Smt.Haleema predeceased him on 20.9.1993, pension was discontinued with effect from 19.9.1998. In the year 2005, the appellant, who was the second wife of the pensioner, submitted application before the Cochin Port Trust (Dock Labour Division) for getting family pension.

2. By a memo dated 28.8.2006, the 1st respondent directed the appellant to produce certain documents. Alleging that, in spite of production of sufficient documents, no final orders have been communicated on the claim for family pension, the appellant had approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.30281/2009. The said Writ Petition was disposed of vide Ext.P1 judgment, directing the Cochin Port Trust to take a decision on the said application after considering the documents produced by the appellant, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P1 judgment, the 1st respondent by Ext.P2 informed the petitioner that her claim for family pension stands admitted subject to the production of a succession certificate from the appropriate court having jurisdiction for releasing Rs.3,99,655/-being the family pension and DA arrears for the period from 19.9.1998 to 28.2.2010. The petitioner was directed to produce succession certificate in order to complete the attendant process for the grant of family pension and other consequential benefits.

3. On 24.1.2011, the appellant was disbursed with Rs.2,40,854/-towards 50% of the arrears of family pension and thereafter, she is being paid with 50% of the monthly family pension and DA thereon. According to the appellant, it was not possible for her to produce succession certificate considering her old age and ailments and also due to non-co-operation of the children of her late husband born out of his first marriage with late Haleema. She could not also collect the present address of those persons. The above facts were intimated to the 2nd respondent vide her letter dated 28.9.2012, with a request to release the entire arrears of family pension and also full monthly family pension, without insisting production of succession certificate. But, the 1st respondent by Ext.P3 again insisted the appellant to produce succession certificate in order to release the balance arrears and also full monthly family pension.

4. According to the appellant, in the year 2006 she was issued with Ext.P4 memo of the 1st respondent directing her to produce certain documents in order to consider her claim for family pension. Ext.P4 memo was followed by Exts.P5 and P6 memos, by which she was asked to submit the original of certain certificates/documents. Pursuant to Exts. P4 to P6, the appellant produced various documents, including Ext.P7 certificate issued by the President of Kadappuram Grama Panchayat certifying that Haleema, the first wife of pensioner died on 20.9.1993; Ext.P8 death certificate of the pensioner, who died on 18.9.1998; Ext.P9 marriage certificate, certifying that the marriage of the pensioner with the appellant was solemnised on 18.9.1994; Ext.P10 identification certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Chavakkad, certifying that Salmabeevi, Selmabi and Selmabi (Ummuselma) mentioned in the election identity card, ration card and marriage certificate, respectively are the same person; Ext.P11 certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Chavakkad, certifying that the appellant has not remarried and is still continuing as widow; Ext.P12 ration card containing the name of the pensioner, his first wife Haleema and their children, daughter-in-law and grandchild.

5. The grievance of the appellant is that, in spite of all these documents, the 1st and 2nd respondents disbursed only 50% of the arrears of family pension and she is bein