PADMAVATHI AMMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether family pension under the Tension Regulations of the Army, 1961, can be denied to the next eligible legal heir on the ground that it was, earlier, sanctioned to and was being drawn by the primarily eligible person till his/her disqualification to receive the same. This question arises for consideration in the following factual matrix:-The petitioner is the mother of one Unni Pillai, who died on 2. 11. 1993, while serving as a sepoy in ASC Battalion of the Indian Army. He married one Rekha a few months prior his death and admittedly, she is issueless in that wedlock. Upon the death of the said Unni Pillai, family pension was sanctioned to the primarily eligible person viz. , the widow, in accordance with the pension regulation of the army. However, she incurred disqualification to receive family pension on account of her remarriage which was solemnized on 19. 4. 2000. Thereafter, the petitioner herein, who is the mother of the deceased Unni Pillai, applied for family pension as per Ext. P1. The 3rd respondent duly recommended for granting of pension to the petitioner and the documents along with the application were forwarded for consideration of the second respondent. However, they gathered dust. At last, the second respondent took up the matter for consideration and as per Ext. P6 dated 20. 6. 2005, the petitioner was informed of rejection of her claim. It was challenging Ext. P6 that this Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE aforesaid factual details were not under dispute. Ext. P6 contains the objection and also the reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner for family pension as hereunder :-

(3.) I have heard the Counsel on both sides. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. V. N Achuthakurup, who appeared for the petitioner contended in the light of the relevant provisions under the Pension Regulations of the Army, 1961 that there is no legal impediment at all for the grant of family pension to the petitioner. To substantiate his contention, the learned Senior counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Kunhami v. Union of India reported in (2006 (2) KLT 661) and contended that all the relevant provisions under the army Regulations were elaborately considered thereunder. On the other hand: the learned counsel reiterated the contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent to resist the same. The crux of his contentions is that on the death of the concerned Armed Force personnel, his widow was granted the family pension and she continued to receive the same and therefore, her subsequent incurring of disqualification would not make the mother of the deceased personnel eligible for the grant of family pension.