Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 15415
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
ANANDAPADMANABHAN NAIR C.K. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
OP(KAT) NO. 279 OF 2025|OA NO.1142 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA, SMT.L.AMMU PILLAI
For the Respondents: SRI. A. J. VARGHESE, SR. GP
Remarriage terminates widower's family pension under KSR Rule 90(7)(a); later annulment does not automatically restore eligibility unless retroactive from marriage date.
Headnote:Under Rule 90(7)(a) of Part III Kerala Service Rules, family pension to widower ceases upon remarriage. Facts involve widower's remarriage later annulled as null and void under Section 5 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, with claim for pension restoration. Court found no eligibility for reinstatement post-remarriage, distinguishing cases where annulment retroactive from marriage date. Issues framed as whether Tribunal erred in denying pension restoration despite annulment, invoking Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction. Ratio: High Court cannot re-appraise Tribunal findings absent perversity; remarriage terminates family membership, annulment not retroactive unless specified, unlike dependent's case. Original petition dismissed, upholding Tribunal's order denying family pension restoration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. chronology of pension sanction, remarriage, annulment, and tribunal proceedings. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's claim of retroactive annulment vs. government's remarriage cessation. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. limited supervisory jurisdiction under article 227, no appellate re-appraisal. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13) |
| 4. ksr rule 90(7)(a) bars pension restoration post-remarriage despite annulment. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
The applicant in O.A.No.1142 of 2024 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, (‘the Tribunal’ for short) filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging Ext.P5 order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.
2. The petitioner-applicant was sanctioned with family pension with effect from 01.03.2006, the date of death of his wife, Smt. Geetha, who voluntarily retired from the office of the 3rdrespondent District Registrar, Idukki, while working as a Senior Clerk. Later, the petitioner-applicant married one Smt.Vijayakumari Amma on 17.08.2007, and on his request, the family pension was stopped with effect from the date of marriage. The petitioner-applicant pleads that Smt.Vijayakumari Amma deserted him and thereafter filed M.C.No.271 of 2014 before the Family Court, Nedumangad, claiming maintenance from the petitioner-applicant. As per Annexure A1 order dated 23.06.2015 in the MC, the Family Court held that Smt.Vijayakumari Amma is not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner-applicant. Pursuant to Annexure A1 order, the petitioner-applicant filed Annexure A2 application dated 23.08.2016 before respondents 3 and 4 to restore the family pension. As per Annexure A3 order dated 09.11.2016, the 3rdrespondent ordered that the application of the petitioner-applicant for family pension is allowable and sanction was accorded to reinstate his family pension with effect from 9/2007, subject to the verification of the Accountant General. The 3rdrespondent has issued Annexure A4 consequential order dated 15.02.2017.
2.1. By Annexure A5 letter dated 08.05.2017, the 4th respondent informed the petitioner-applicant that his case is a special case and the matter has been taken up with the Government for clarification. Thereafter, by Annexure A6 letter dated 14.09.2017, the 4th respondent informed the petitioner that the finance department of the Government has intimated that as per Rule 90(7) of part III of Kerala Service Rules (‘KSR’ for short), eligibility of the family pension in the case of a widow/widower ceases from the date of remarriage and as per existing Rules, there is no provision to reinstate family pension in such cases and that the request of the petitioner-applicant to reinstate the family pension cannot be considered.
2.2. Aggrieved by Annexure A6 letter, the petitioner-
applicant approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.(EKM)No.2728 of 2017. Meanwhile, he filed O.P.No.54 of 2015 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, for the annulment of his marriage with Smt.Vijayakumari Amma. By Annexure A7 judgment dated 25.02.2022, the Family Court declared the marriage of the petitioner-applicant with Smt.Vijayakumari Amma as null and void. Again, the petitioner-applicant submitted Annexure A8 and A9 representations dated 07.06.2023 before respondents 1 and 2, seeking restoration of family pension. The 2nd respondent, by Annexure A10 letter dated 12.07.2023, informed that the request for restoration of family pension cannot be considered as per the existing Rules. By Annexure A13 order dated 27.10.2023, the Tribunal disposed of O.A.(EKM)No.2728 of 2017, directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Annexure A8 representation, untrammelled by the decision taken by the Finance Department as per Annexures A6 and A10. It was also directed that while taking such a decision, due regard will be given to the decision of the Tribunal reflected in Annexure A11 order
