VIMALAN N Vs. VILLAGE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who is entitled to draw family pension consequent to the death of his wife as a High School Assistant in harness on 28.02.2003, seeking to declare that petitioner has not re-married based upon any valid documents as is put forth by the respondents and to quash Ext.P5 report, Ext.P10 order and Ext.P11 notice issued by respondents 1 to 3 respectively, and for other consequential reliefs. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner is a practising advocate aged 70 years, and drawing family pension on the death of his wife in harness. Petitioner drew his pension till 29.02.2016, up to which time, a self-attested declaration of non-remarriage was only essential to draw family pension. The official respondents demanded a non-remarriage certificate from the concerned Village Officer from March, 2016 onwards. Accordingly, petitioner approached the 1st respondent requesting for issuance of the same. But the Village Officer rejected the application endorsing that, on investigation, it is understood that petitioner is living with a lady, evident from Ext.P1.

(3.) Under the above circumstances, petitioner approached the councillor of Karunagappally Municipality, wherein the petitioner resides, and secured a certificate endorsing that the petitioner is not re-married, evident from Ext.P3. Anyhow, aggrieved by Ext.P1, petitioner preferred Ext.P4 appeal before the 2nd respondent, Tahsildar. In the meantime, petitioner secured Ext.P5 under the Right to Information Act from the official respondents, from where it is evident, the reason for non-issuance of the certificate is that, petitioner has re-married the 5th respondent, based on an alleged agreement and anonymous complaint to the above effect, evident from Exts.P8 and P7. Under the above circumstances, 2nd respondent called the petitioner for a personal hearing and petitioner submitted Ext.P9 statement. But the 2nd respondent without appreciating Ext.P9 and without taking into account the un-sustainability of Exts.P7 and P8, passed Ext.P10 order rejecting petitioner's appeal, and consequently, 3rd respondent issued Ext.P11 notice for recovering an amount of Rs.11,50,720/- received by the petitioner towards family pension between 30.06.2006 and 29.02.2016. These are the basic background facts projected by the petitioner.