Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. B. Suresh Kumar, J
ROSY JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 27951/2016
Pension - Family Pension - Indian Succession Act Section 372 - Family pension is not considered a debt nor a security, and hence, a succession certificate cannot be mandated for its disbursement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for family pension following her husband's death, but the Corporation did not process her application due to the absence of a succession certificate.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the petitioner's entitlement to family pension and agreed with previous ruling that a succession certificate should not be required for its disbursement.
Issues: Whether a succession certificate is necessary for the disbursement of family pension to the widow of a deceased pensioner.
Ratio Decidendi: Family pension is not a debt or security that requires a succession certificate under the Indian Succession Act for disbursement.
Final Decision: The court instructed the Corporation to disburse the family pension within one month.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/11TH ASWINA, 1938 WP(C).No. 27951 of 2016 (T)
--------------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S) :
--------------------------
ROSY JOSEPH, AGED 61 YEARS, W/O. LATE A.J.JOSEPH, (DRIVER, KSRTC, ALUVA RETIRED ON 30.11.2007 AND EXPIRED 29.08.2015) ARAKKAL HOUSE, MANJUMMEL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT)
RESPONDENT(S) : ----------------------------
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.
2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 023.
3. THE PERSONNEL OFFICER (P & A), KSRTC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 013.
4. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, ALUVA DEPOT, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 682 011.
BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, S.C THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
-----------------------------------------
APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.09.2015. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF A.J.JOSEPH.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.11.2011.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CERTIFICATE FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELOOR.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.PA8-32866/2007 DATED 01.12.2015.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO. 28866/2015 DATED 23.09.2015.
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.06.2016.
EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE FROM THE TAHSILDAR, N.PARAVOOR, VIDE NO.B3-4283/2016 DATED 18.05.2016.
EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER DATED 07.06.2016.
EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN “SUBRAMANIAN VS. STATE OF KERALA (2006(1) KLT 967).
EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN “THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER VS.
K.J.MARIYAMMA (2010(2) KLT 241).
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.
------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2016
JUDGMENT
The husband of the petitioner, who has retired from the service of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation ('the Corporation' for short), died on 29.08.2015. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of the Corporation in considering the application preferred by the petitioner for family pension. It is alleged by the petitioner that the application of the petitioner for family pension is not being entertained on the ground that the petitioner has not produced succession certificate. According to the petitioner, succession certificate cannot be insisted for disbursement of family pension. The petitioner, therefore, seeks directions to the Corporation to disburse the family pension payable to her.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.
3. The entitlement of the petitioner for family pension is not disputed. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation conceded that the family pension has not been disbursed to the petitioner as she has not produced the succession certificate. In Salma Beevi V.A. v. Administrative Officer, Cochin and others [2014 (3) KHC 820 (DB)], this Court has held that the family pension payable on the death of a pensioner to his widow is neither a debt nor a security of that deceased in respect of which succession certificate can be applied for under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act and that therefore the same cannot be insisted for disbursement of the family pension.
In the light of the said decision of this Court, the writ petition is allowed and the Corporation is directed to disburse the family pension due to the petitioner within one month from today.
Sd/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE bpr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
