KOCHUPATHU Vs. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the widow of late K.M. Syed Ali who retired as an Executive Officer of a Panchayat on 24-6-65. He died on 25-6-1967 without receiving any pensionary benefits except gratuity. The petitioner's husband had put in qualifying service of eight years two months and 28 days. The first respondent as per Ext. P1 dated 13-9-1971 sanctioned a family pension of Rs.30.90 with effect from 26-6-67. But, no family pension was disbursed to the petitioner. She was making repeated representations before various authorities as evidenced by Ext. P2. The authorities were replying to the petitioner requesting her to produce the details of the pension order etc. Now the petitioner is aged 72 (in 1993). This Original Petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to disburse the family pension as sanctioned in Ext. P4 with 12% interest.

(2.) In the statement filed on behalf of the first respondent, reference has been made to the letter of the Accountant General wherein the Government was informed that the petitioner's husband was not having the minimum qualifying service for pension and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the family pension. It is not known the basis on which the Accountant General took his decision. No rule or orders have been mentioned by the Accountant General or by the Government in the statement.

(3.) My attention was drawn to R.90(4B) of Part III K.S.R. which reads as follows: