A widow is entitled to family pension under Kerala Service Rules despite delays in application, provided she has not remarried.

JUDGMENT :

P.M.MANOJ, J.

Dated this the 4^th day of February, 2026 The writ petition is preferred by the widow of late P.Sasidharan, who retired from the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) as a Senior Assistant on 30.09.2000. The challenge raised in the writ petition is against Ext.P3 order issued by the 1^st respondent, whereby sanction was accorded to keep in abeyance the disbursement of arrears of family pension amounting to Rs.15,96,000/- as well as the monthly family pension payable to the petitioner pending disposal of a vigilance enquiry. The enquiry was relating to the alleged irregular appointment obtained by Smt. Bindu P., the daughter and late P. Sasidharan (retired), the brother of late S. Rajappan, a former employee of the Board, under the compassionate employment scheme. The petitioner also seeks a direction to resume payment of the family pension and to disburse all benefits due to her, as sanctioned under Ext. P2.

2. The short facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner's husband retired from the Service of the Board as a Senior Assistant on 30.09.2000 on attaining superannuation. His pensionary benefits were sanctioned as per order dated 30.09.2000. Subsequently, on 21.05.2008, the petitioner’s husband expired. It is the contention of the petitioner that, upon the death of her husband, she approached the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents for sanction of family pension, in the light of pension sanctioned to her husband as per Ext. P1.

3. It is also admitted that the petitioner was an employee of the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board and that she retired on superannuation. However, she could not take effective follow-up action to secure the family pension. Later, upon the persistent efforts of the petitioner, the family pension was revalidated, though it was claimed after eight years, which is beyond the prescribed period of three years as stated by the Board in the light of the Board’s decision dated 03.07.2017. However, Ext.P3 reveals that on the basis of a complaint pertaining to the employment granted under the compassionate appointment scheme, initially to the brother of the deceased Rajappan and later to his daughter, a vigilance enquiry was ordered. In the said circumstances, the 1^st respondent issued a direction to keep in abeyance the disbursement of arrears of family pension amounting to Rs.15,96,000/- and the monthly family pension payable to the petitioner, pending disposal of the vigilance enquiry. It is in these circumstances, that the petitioner approached this Court by preferring this writ petition.

4. In response to the contentions raised, the learned Standing Counsel Dr. Thushara James, appearing for respondents 1 to 3 contended that it is an admitted fact in the pleadings itself, that the petitioner’s husband had obtained employment on compassionate grounds in the year 1974, following the death of his brother, Late Rajappan, in the year 1970, who was working as a Grade II Overseer under the Board. Her husband later retired from the service in the year 2000 and while drawing monthly pension, he expired on 21.05.2008.

5. It is further contended that the petitioner, who is also a retired employee of the Khadi and Village Industries Board, did not claim family pension until 2017. In fact, if family pension is not claimed within three years, it is required to be revalidated by the Board. Here, the petitioner applied only after eight