Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 62040
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
RAVI PARAMESWARA RAJA – Respondent
WA 1689 2020
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. N. MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY, SRI.R.RAMADAS, SMT.MEENA.A, SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH, SRI.K.C.KIRAN, SRI.ASHWIN SATHYANATH, SMT.M.R.MINI R1 BY SRI. T. KRISHNANUNNI
The judgment establishes that annuities granted to families under historical agreements continue to be recognized rights, independent of changes to provisions related to privy purses.
Headnote:
Annuity - Family Pension - Article 295(2) of the Constitution of India - The court interpreted Article 295(2) as establishing the obligation of the State of Kerala to honor the annuity granted to the family of the petitioner, concluding that the annuity is a right of the family and not merely of individual members.
Fact of the Case:
The family of the writ petitioner sought to claim an annuity payable by the State of Kerala on behalf of the family after the death of its eldest member, which had been historically acknowledged. The State refused, claiming it was a personal right of the deceased.
Issues: Whether the family's right to the annuity continued after the repeal of Articles 291 and 362 of the Constitution, and whether the State is obligated to maintain these payments under Article 295(2).
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the annuity granted to the petitioner's family is a recognized right under Article 295(2), independent of privy purses and political pensions, meaning the State of Kerala has a continuing obligation to honor these payments.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, affirming the entitlement of the family to receive the annuity.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of November, 2022
SHAJI P.CHALY,J
The State of Kerala and its officials have filed the captioned writ appeal challenging the judgment of a learned single Judge dated 18th June, 2020 in W.P.(C) No. 20178 of 2013, whereby Exhibit P7 order dated 22.7.2013 passed by the State Government refusing family and political pension to the legal heirs of Ravi Sharma Raja Krishna Raja, was quashed, and consequential directions were issued.
2. A fascinating and short question emerging for consideration is whether, after the repeal of Article 291 of the Constitution of India dealt with privy purses, the family of the writ petitioner is entitled to get the annuity contemplated under Article 295(2) of the .
3. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:
Writ petitioner is a member of Malayala Brahmin family, which possessed sovereign rights over the territory of Paravur, Ernakulam District, which were relinquished in favour of the ruler of Travancore State in the year 939M.E.—corresponding to 764A.D. In consideration of the said relinquishment, the ruler of Travancore State made a grant of annuity to petitioner's family, which originally was payable partly in money and partly in paddy. But, later became payable in money only, the part of which was expected in paddy being commuted into its money value. According to the writ petitioner, in terms of the agreement executed by and between the petitioner's family and the Travancore State, the family was receiving the said payment from 1764 AD onwards. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that the annuity granted to the family of the petitioner was treated as a family pension as per a Government Order dated 08.09.1971— Pension Payment Order No.1192, evident from Exhibit P1; and not confined to any person, and therefore, according to the petitioner, it will not be confined to the members then living.
4. It is also the submission of the writ petitioner that the amount of annuity will not be reduced proportionately, whenever there is a death in the family and it is the family that is entitled to get the benefit and not the members. It is the case of the petitioner that the family of the petitioner is entitled to receive the said benefit from the Government of Kerala by virtue of the constitutional obligation contained under Article 295(2) of the Constitution of India and the eldest member of the family is entitled to collect the same and distribute to all eligible members. Late Sri.Ravi Sharma Raja Krishna Raja was the eldest male member of the family and he died on 19.09.2011. On his death, the petitioner became the eldest member of the family. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted an application to get pension payment order changed in the name of the petitioner; however, the Government have taken a stand that the benefit granted to the predecessor of the petitioner was a personal right, and the same cannot be given to his successor-in-interest, and it was accordingly that the claim was declined as per Exhibit P7 order.
5. In fact, the issue has a chequered history after the formation of the State. After the formation of the State of Kerala, some dispute arose with respect to the liability of the State to grant the benefit. Thereupon, late Ravi Sharma Raja filed O.S.No. 11 of 1958 against the State of Kerala before the court of Subordinate Judge, Paravur. The said suit was decreed as per judgment dated 20th March, 1959. The State preferred an appeal against the decree before the District Court, Paravur as A.S.No.153 of 1959, which was dismissed by the appellate court.
6. Even though the State filed an appeal, S.A. No. 396 of 1960 before this Court, it was also dismissed as per Exhibit P2 judgment dated 21.10.1960; and the further appeal, A.S. No.71/1961, before a Division Bench of this Court also ended in dismissal as per Exhibit P3 judgement dated 20.09.1962. The said judgement has become final. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is that the rig
