Back
2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 51858
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J
SHALINI BABU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 26400/2018
The nature of honorarium must be evaluated based on its actual effect on income, considering necessary expenditure for the role held, in context with pension eligibility requirements.
Headnote:
Pension - Widow Pension - Kerala Panchayat Raj Act - Sections 160; G.O.(Ms).No. 52/2014/SWD - This case addresses the eligibility criteria for widow pension, particularly the interpretations of income limits, honorarium nature, and procedural fairness in pension cancellation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a widow from a backward class, challenged the cancellation of her widow pension based on the argument that her income as a Panchayat President exceeded the prescribed limit, despite the nature of payments potentially being merely compensatory.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the actions canceling the pension were unilateral and void without adequate opportunity for the petitioner to present her case. It highlighted that the nature and purpose of the honorarium must be assessed regarding actual income and expense.
Issues: Whether the honorarium received by the petitioner constitutes income that disqualifies her from receiving widow pension under the applicable laws and whether the cancellation of said pension was procedurally fair.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined the need to assess the net income of the petitioner after allowing for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses, emphasizing that mere nomenclature does not define the income nature.
Final Decision: The court declared the cancellation of widow pension to be illegal, upholding the petitioner's entitlement to continued benefits.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned decisions as per Ext.P-7 proceedings dated 28.6.2018 rendered by the 1st respondent Government in the Local Self Institutions Department and the consequential Ext.P-8 order dated 18.7.2018 rendered by the 3rd respondent Director of Panchayats, whereby they have ordered cancellation of the widow pension, which was earlier granted to the petitioner, on the ground that she is not eligible for the grant of widow pension taking into account the income derived by her as honorarium paid to her as the President of the local Panchayat concerned.
2. There is no serious dispute as to the fact that the petitioner belongs to backward class (Latin Catholic community) and that she is living in a rented house along with her only son (minor son who is studying in Std.X). Her husband died on 10.1.2014 as evident from Ext.P-1 death certificate. After the death of her husband, she was sanctioned widow pension from March, 2014 onwards, referred to in Ext.P-9 G.O.(Ms).No. 52/2014/SWD dated 20.6.2004, under the scheme framed by the State Government and later she was actually disbursed widow pension w.e.f. June, 2014. As per the earlier prevalent norms contained in G.O.(Ms).No. 59/2013/SWD dated 20.7.2013, a widow would have been eligible for grant of widow pension under the said scheme, if her income from other sources does not exceed Rs. 3 lakhs. Later, the said ceiling limit was reduced as per Ext.P-9 G.O.(Ms).No. 52/2014/SWD dated 20.6.2014, wherein it was held that the person becomes eligible for grant of widow pension only if her income from all sources does not exceed Rs. 1 lakh per annum.
3. It appears that the monthly widow pension that is being disbursed to the petitioner under the said scheme is a meagre amount @ Rs. 1000/- or so, per month. Later, in the elections to the local Panchayats, which was held in the State in November, 2015 the petitioner was successfully elected as a member of the committee of the Panchayat from a women reserved constituency of the Kadamakkudy grama Panchayat, Ernakulam District and later she was also elected as the president of the said Panchayat in December 2015, as the post of president of the said Panchayat was reserved for women. It further appears from the pleadings on both sides, more particularly Ext.P-5 report submitted to the 3rd respondent Director of Panchayat,s that a person by name A.X.Joseph was then working as a staff of the said Panchayat on deputation basis from the Labour Department. That that the petitioner had to take action against him, which led to the suspension of service of that deputation incumbent and later he had left the said deputation assignment. It also appears that his wife, one Smt. Mini Joseph, had submitted Ext.P-2 complaint dated 10.10.2017 to the Finance Committee Chairman of the said Panchayat alleging that the petitioner has committed financial impropriety inasmuch as she is drawing the benefit of widow pension and that going by the income drawn by her as honorarium, as the president of the Panchayat, the same would exceed the ceiling limit of Rs. 1 lakh, for widow pension and that the grant of widow pension to the petitioner is an abuse of the process, etc. Later, the 3rd respondent Director of Panchayats had issued Ext.P-5 letter dated 16.2.2018 to the said Panchayat for directing to furnish a report on the allegations raised against the petitioner as per Ext.P-2, on the points enumerated in Ext.P-5. Thereupon, the Secretary of the said Panchayat had submitted Ext.P-6 report dated 22.2.2018 before the 4th respondent giving clarifications of various details. It is stated therein that the petitioner was granted widow pension pursuant to her application dated 24.2.2014 and that she was disbursed widow pension based on resolution No.5 of the said Panchayat and that pension was disbursed to her w.e.f. March, 2014 and that the said disbursal of widow pension is current and live. That the petitioner had taken charge a
