Constitutional rights affirm entitlement to family pension regardless of delays in application submission, particularly for widows.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a 79 year old widow seeking indulgence of this Court for payment of arrears of family pension for the period from 2016 to 2023. The petitioner’s husband late C.A.Angelos retired as a clerk from St.Francis Assisi High School, Arthunkal, and was drawing pension. On 10.03.2016 Sri.C.A.Angelos died. It is stated that the petitioner was having mental illness at that point of time and could not apply for family pension. In 2018 the petitioner had approached the Sub Treasury Officer and she was informed that since two years have already passed, sanction has to be obtained from the Accountant General. Petitioner was also informed that since she is a patient the pension can be drawn by the petitioner’s son, Eby Girish. Ext.P1 application was submitted by Sri.Eby Girish for this purpose to the Headmaster of the School. The Accountant General by Ext.P2, directed production of medical certificate from the Medical Board and a Guardian Certificate. The directions were complied with and finally the petitioner was granted family pension from the date of mustering which was in 2023. The family pension from the date of death of the petitioner’s husband till the date of mustering has been denied. It is aggrieved by the above stand of the respondents that the petitioner has approached this Court.

2. The Government Pleader submits that there has been undue delay in approaching the Government for the family pension. Since the petitioner approached only after 7 years, it is contended that no liability can be cast on the Government for payment of the family pension for the period from the date of death of the petitioner’s husband till the date on which the petitioner approached the authorities. Referring to Rule 135, Rule 294 & 295 of KSR Part III and Kerala Treasury Code Vol.1, it is argued that the Governement is justified in denying the pension for the period of delay. 3. The counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court inNoushad S. v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation in W.P.(C) No.17880 of 2016 , wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering the statutory Rules, held that the right of family pension emanates from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and there is no justification in limiting the same to the date of submission of the application. The learned Judge relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inS.K.Mastan Bee v. General Manager, South Central Railway and another [(2003) 1 SCC 184] for arriving at the conclusion. A similar view was taken in Aisha Kunju v. Deputy Director of Education [2004(2) KLT 174] . In a similar case inLalitha M.P. v. KSRTC & Ors. [W.P.(C)No.26518/2024), this Court had considered the question whether delay in fling the application will affect the right to get the family pension during the period of delay. After referring to Note 5 attached to Rule 90(6) of Part III KSR, this Court held that the period of two years fixed for submission of the application for family pension would not apply in the case of widow of the pensioner. This Court had placed reliance onAisha Kunju (supra) and held that the family pension was payable from the first date of the next month of the death of the pensioner. In view of the law laid down there is no reason to deny the petitioner the benefit of family pension for the period prior to the application.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P5 is set aside to the extent it limits family pension from the date of mustering. There will be a direction to the respondents 1 to 5 to disburse the family pension arrears to the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2016 to 31.10.2023 within two months from today. If the payment is not effected within two months, the amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment and the officer who is responsible for the delay wil