RENUKA P. Vs. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the daughter of one Raghavan Ezhuthachan, seeking to declare that she is entitled to receive the family pension on account of the petitioner as the sole living physically disabled, unmarried daughter, after petitioner's mother, who is the legally wedded and only living wife of late Raghavan Ezhuthachan, and for other consequential reliefs. Even though the wife of late Raghavan Ezhuthachan viz., Rukmani was not in the party array in the writ petition, later she was impleaded as additional 3rd respondent. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Late Raghavan Ezhuthachan, according to the petitioner, has married the 3rd respondent viz., Rukmani and in that wedlock, petitioner was born. However, it is admitted that late Raghavan Ezhuthachan had a second wife viz., Dhakshayini, and after her death, Raghavan Ezhuthachan married another person viz., Visalakshi. In the family pension record, the rd wife Visalakshi was shown as the successor for family pension. However, she pre-deceased Raghavan Ezhuthachan on 06.07.1997. Raghavan Ezhuthachan died on 09.05.2010. Raghavan Ezhuthachan did not have any issues in Visalakshi. However, in Dhakshayini, additional respondents 5 and 6 were born.

(3.) Claim of the petitioner is that, on the death of Raghavan Ezhuthachan, petitioner is the only eligible person who is entitled for the family pension of Raghavan Ezhuthachan. Even though petitioner approached the Human Rights Commission for redressal of her grievances and secured orders, the respondents did not take any action to release family pension to the petitioner. However, the authorities have demanded the petitioner for production of certain documents and even though produced the same, it was also not taken into account, and declined family pension to the petitioner. It is thereupon that petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition.