MATHAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a pensioner now aged 70. Petitioner's first wife, Elamma, was the nominee approved by the respondents for the purpose of family pension. She died on February 22, 1984. Thereafter he contracted a second marriage with one Lakshmikutty Amma of Arakkal house. He submitted an application before the second respondent for substituting his second wife, Lakshmikutty Amma in the place of his deceased wife as nominee for receiving the benefit of family pension on his death. That application was returned with the endorsement that family acquired after retirement is not eligible for pension. This was done presumably on the basis of the provisions contained in Rule 90 (6)of Part III K. S. R. The Note 2 of the Rule stated that marriage after retirement will not be considered for these rules. Petitioner submits that the provision contained in this Rule is discriminatory and it has no legs to stand.

(2.) ON behalf of the first respondent a detailed counter affidavit has been filed. The contention taken therein is based on Rule 90 of Part III K. S. R. According to Note 2 under the Sub-rule (6) of that Rule marriage after retirement will not be considered for puspose of grant of family pension. Since petitioner entered into marriage with Lakshmikutty Amma after his retirement, she cannot be treated as member of the family and so no family pension can be accorded to her. This provision, it is contended, is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution either.

(3.) IN Bhagwanti v. Union of India (AIR) 1989 SC 2088, Their Lordships had to consider the question as to whether the spouse-man or woman-as the case may be, married after the retirement of the concerned Government servant can be kept out of the definition of family so as to deprive him or her from the benefit of the family pension. It was also considered whether children born after retirement are entitled to benefits of such pension. Their Lordships observed:-