Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

A.P.RAMLA BEEVI versus THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


A.P.RAMLA BEEVI v. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL - OP No. 25273 of 1999(H) [2007] RD-KL 656 (10 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 25273 of 1999(H)

1. A.P.RAMLA BEEVI
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :10/01/2007

O R D E R

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

```````````````````````````````````````````````````` O.P. No. 25273 OF 1999 H ````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Dated this the 10th day of January, 2007



J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the mother of a minor child born in her wedlock with one Abdul Nazar, who was an Arabic teacher working under the 2nd respondent. The said Abdul Nazar died while in service on 17.12.1992. Family pension became due to the petitioner and her minor daughter. The petitioner later remarried and became ineligible to continue to receive her share of the family pension. But the minor daughter continued to be eligible to receive the family pension. Before the remarriage of the petitioner, the 4th respondent, who was the de jure guardian of the child, gave his consent for payment of the minor's share of the family pension to the petitioner. But on remarriage of the petitioner, respondents 1 to 3 insisted on the petitioner producing fresh consent from the 4th respondent-de jure guardian. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this original petition seeking the following relief:

(i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, commanding the 1st and 2nd respondents to disburse the family pension to the petitioner's daughter Sithara Jahan with effect from 13.8.98 and continue to pay the same. OP.25273/99 2

2. A Division Bench of this court, before whom the interim orders were challenged, passed the following judgment in W.A. No.1387/2000:

" The appellant has filed this appeal against an interim order passed in C.M.P. No.42558 of 1999 in OP No.25273/1999. The learned single Judge had directed that the 4th respondent, being the natural guardian of minor girl Sithara Jahan, shall produce the necessary indemnity bond before the 2nd respondent for sanctioning the amount by the second respondent. The second respondent was also directed to sanction the amount thereafter. It was also directed that the pension drawn by the 4th respondent on behalf of the minor girl shall be deposited in a fixed account in the same treasury from where the amount is paid. The apprehension of the appellant is that the 4th respondent, after depositing the amount, may withdraw the same and appropriate for himself to the detriment of the minor girl. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant therefore submits that a direction may be issued to the 4th respondent not to withdraw the amount so deposited.

2. In view of the apprehension entertained by the appellant, it is clarified that the 4th respondent will not withdraw the said amount without obtaining further orders from this court. Since the counsel for the appellant also submits that nothing survives to be considered in the O.P., there will be a direction to post the writ petition to a near date. This appeal is disposed of as above."

3. Now, it is reported before me that the 4th respondent is no more. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this original petition with the following directions: OP.25273/99 3 Respondents 1 to 3 shall continue to deposit the family pension due to the daughter of the said Abdul Nazar in the account maintained for depositing the amount as per the order in W.A. No.1387/00 till the daughter attains majority. On the daughter attaining majority, the amounts accrued in that account with interest shall be paid to the daughter and family pension shall thereafter be paid to the daughter directly till she ceases to be eligible for family pension.

(S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE)

aks

S. SIRI JAGAN , J.

OP No.25273/99H

J U D G M E N T

10th January, 2007


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.