Petitioner, husband of one Minila Krishnan. K.G., who was in the service of the respondent Corporation, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P6 order, whereby, the family pension was directed to be issued from 8.6.2015 whereas the employee died on 17.08.2006 and for other related reliefs.

2. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are thus; petitioner is the husband of late Minila Krishnan. K.G., an employee of the respondent Corporation, working as Junior Assistant and died on 17.08.2006. Two minor children born out of the wedlock are being looked after by the petitioner. The deceased employee had 8 years of service in the respondent Corporation at the time of her death. Respondent Corporation was informed the death of the employee on 17.08.2006 and her colleagues and other officials of the respondent Corporation participated in the cremation and other ceremonies thereafter. Petitioner submitted an application for family pension to the respondent by letter dated 20.9.2006 and was pursuing the matter with the head office, evident from Ext.P1 application. While so, petitioner came to know that petitioner's mother-in-law had written to the respondent to block release of all retiral benefits payable to the petitioner till the disposal of the legal proceedings initiated against the petitioner. A copy of which is received by the petitioner under the RTI Act, 2005, evident from Ext.P2.

3. According to the petitioner, the respondent's office informed the petitioner that, there is no application pending for family pension from the petitioner. Therefore, on 26.05.2013 petitioner submitted a fresh application for family pension to the respondent, evident from Ext.P3. According to the petitioner, respondent did not act upon Ext.P1 application within a reasonable period of time and by a letter dated 4.10.2014 requested the respondent to expedite the release of pensionary benefits after deducting the debts by way of loans etc., evident from Ext.P4. As per Ext.P5 dated 2.3.2015, petitioner was directed to produce documents enumerated therein and copies of the judgments in the cases registered against him along with indemnity bond in stamp paper. Petitioner complied with all the above directions of the respondent and thereupon Ext.P6 order is passed by the respondent sanctioning the family pension on and w.e.f. 8.6.2015. Even though, petitioner submitted an application requesting release of family pension from the date of eligibility i.e., following the month of the death of the employee, the same was rejected stating that, the family pension is paid from the date of submission of the application with all necessary documents, evident from Ext.P7.

4. It is also contended that, as per Ext.P8 received under the RTI Act, it is stated that, it is the duty of the Unit Officer to get required documents from the legal heirs of the deceased and according to the petitioner, Ext.P5 letter was received by the petitioner after a delay of 9 years. According to the petitioner, there is no willful delay or laches on the part of the petitioner to make claim with respect to the family pension due to the petitioner consequent on the death of his wife. It is also stated that after the demise of petitioner's wife, his mother-in-law took away all his belongings including records and documents from his house and he had to seek the help of police, evident from Ext.P9. Petitioner was also implicated in a criminal case and was arrested and subsequently released on bail. Pursuant to the direction issued by this court, children took away by the mother-in-law of the petitioner, had given custody to the petitioner after the decision in O.P.(G&W) No.472/2008 dated 28.5.2008 of the Family Court. It is also contended that, as per rule 118(1) of Part III KSSR where death occurs while in service, imposes a duty on the Head of Office/Department or the Audit Officer, who is the custodian of the nomination, on receipt of the death report of the e