Entitlement to family pension upheld for legally wedded wife despite third-party payments.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is stated to be the widow of one B.Rajendran, who was serving the Indian Army. After his retirement from the Army, a pension payment order dated 23.12.1998 was also issued in his name, as evidenced by Ext.P1. B.Rajendran passed away on 23.03.2004. The petitioner states that thereafter she was in receipt of family pension. However, the petitioner states that she received the family pension only till 30.11.2006, and thereafter, she got remarried and she had also not checked the crediting of the family pension in her account. The petitioner states that in the year 2022, she came to know that the 8^th respondent herein, who is none other than her sister-in-law (sister of deceased B.Rajendran) had been receiving the family pension of the deceased, by opening an account with the 6^th respondent herein in the name of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner filed a complaint before the police authorities, and the Mavelikkara Police registered Crime No.435 of 2022 as evidenced by Ext.P3 First Information Report. On the basis of all the above, the petitioner approached the 2^nd respondent with Ext.P4 representation seeking restoration of family pension in her name.

Pursuant to the afore representation, the petitioner states that, by Ext.P5 communication, an investigation was ordered, leading to the report at Ext.P6, wherein it was found that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of deceased B.Rajendran and hence eligible for the family pension and as regards the withdrawal of pension from November, 2006 onwards, it was found that the same is “sub judice” and being dealt by the Court. The petitioner further points out that Ext.P7 communication has been issued by the 2^nd respondent, also with a copy to the Bank concerned, informing that the petitioner is entitled for the family pension and at the same time, directing the Bank concerned to provide a reply/reason for the disbursement of family pension to the 8^th respondent herein from November 2006 to June 2022 and also to recover the entire amount of family pension for the afore period from the 8^th respondent. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P8, by which, same directions are repeated. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P9 communication dated 24.05.2023, by which, she was informed by the Indian Army that she should liaison with the Bank concerned for obtaining the family pension. It is the contention of the petitioner that, even after all the above, the family pension due to her has not been disbursed. In such circumstances, she has approached this Court, seeking appropriate directions to respondents 5 to 7 to disburse the family pension to her and also seeking a direction to the said respondents to take steps for recouping the amounts paid to the 8^th respondent herein.

2. I have heard Sri.R.Reji, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sunil Shankar, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 5 to 7, as well as Sri.V.Visal Ajayan, the learned counsel for the 8^th respondent.

3. Two issues arise for consideration in this writ petition.

The first issue is as to the entitlement of the petitioner for the disbursement of pension at least from 2022 onwards. The fact that the petitioner was the legally wedded wife of deceased B.Rajendran is not in dispute. The petitioner was originally granted family pension is also beyond doubt. The communication from the Indian Army at Ext.P6 also states that it is the petitioner herein who is eligible for the family pension. On that basis, the respondent Bank was directed to act on the basis of the directions contained in Exts.P7 and P8. In those communications, the Bank was directed to take steps for recovering the payments already made to the 8^th respondent from November 2006 to June 2