SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Mad) 1532

High Court of Judicature at Madras
D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
C. Banumathi
Versus
The Assistant Director, Health Department, Krishnagiri & Others
W.P. No. 34961 of 2013
Decided On: 23-06-2014

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: J. Prakasam, Advcoate.
For the Respondents:R1, R2, I. Arockiasamy, Govt. Advocate, R3, S. Sathiaseelan, R4, V. Vijay Shankar, Advocates.

The judgment established the entitlements of the deceased's wives and their children to family pension and DCRG under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. It also clarified the impact of government employment on the claim for compassionate appointment, emphasizing the need to consider indigent circumstances and the employment status of the claimant.

Headnote:

Family Pension - Tamil Nadu Pension Rules - Rule 49(7) - Rule 49(13)(b)(ii) - Rule 45(5) - Rule 48 - Compassionate Appointment - G.O.Ms.No.560, Labour and Employment Department, dated 03.08.1977

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, the legally wedded wife of the deceased, sought family pension, Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG), and compassionate appointment for her children. The third respondent, the second wife of the deceased, also claimed the same benefits for her children. The court was tasked with resolving the rival claims and determining the entitlements of the parties under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and compassionate appointment guidelines.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that both the petitioner and the third respondent's children were entitled to family pension and DCRG as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. It also ruled that the children of the third respondent were not entitled to compassionate appointment due to their mother's government employment. The court directed the authorities to process the family pension and DCRG payments as per its findings and to grant compassionate appointment to one of the petitioner's children.

Issues: Rival claims for family pension, DCRG, and compassionate appointment; Interpretation of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and compassionate appointment guidelines.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, emphasizing the entitlements of the deceased's wives and their children to family pension and DCRG. It also considered the impact of the third respondent's government employment on the claim for compassionate appointment, in line with the compassionate appointment guidelines.

Final Decision: The court directed the authorities to allocate 50% of the family pension to the petitioner and the remaining 50% to the elder daughter of the third respondent, with subsequent reversion to the petitioner's son. It also ordered an equal share of DCRG for the petitioner's children and the third respondent's children. Additionally, the court ruled in favor of compassionate appointment for one of the petitioner's children, based on a no objection letter from the other child and the petitioner.

Judgment :

1. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Mr.K.Chandran, who was employed as Medical Attendant in Government Primary Health Center, Bargur, Krishnagiri District – second respondent. He died on 09.05.2013 due to illness. The petitioner has two daughters, namely, Saranya and Ramya, who were born on 11.12.1987 and 25.07.1992 respectively through the deceased Chandran.

2. The third respondent, who is the second wife of the deceased Chandran, was also working in the Government Primary Health Center, Kannadahalli, Krishnagiri District, as an Ancillary Nursing Midwife. The third respondent has one son and one daughter through the deceased Chandran and the daughter was born on 12.11.1992 and the son was born on 22.01.1996.

3. The petitioner made a representation dated 18.06.2013 to the second respondent claiming family pension, Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, shortly DRCG, and other terminal benefits and also claiming compassionate appointment to one of her daughters.

4. The third respondent also gave a representation to the second respondent claiming family pension, DCRG and other terminal benefits and also compassionate appointment to one of her children.

5. Since rival claims were made, the second respondent sought the opinion of the first respondent through his letter dated 22.07.2013.

6. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the first and second respondents to sanction all the death benefits to her and her children due to the death of her husband and to consider the representation dated 18.06.2013 for granting the death benefits to them and for compassionate appointment to one of her daughters.

7. A counter-affidavit is filed by the third respondent stating that her children are entitled to family pension and DCRG, as provided under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. The third respondent has also pleaded to provide compassionate appointment to one of her children.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Though initially learned counsel for the petitioner sought to claim that since the petitioner is the legally wedded wife, the petitioner and her two children are only entitled to the family pension and DCRG and other terminal benefits, the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the claim of the children of the third respondent for family pension and DCRG could also be granted, as provided under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.

10. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract the following passage from paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit of the third respondent.

“4. .... though I am not entitled to after-death benefits of the deceased K.Chandran, as per the Hindu Law of Succession and Tamil Nadu Pension Rules excepting me, my two children born through the deceased K.Chandran are entitled to both family pension (upto the age of 25 years) and death-cum-retirement-gratuity to an extent of 50 per cent.”

11. It is also relevant to extract the following provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, shortly, the rules.

12. Rule 49 of the Rules deals with family pension. Rule 49(7) of the Rules is relevant for this case and the same is extracted hereunder :

“49.Family Pension -

(1) to (6) .....

(7) (a)(i) Where family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to widows in equal shares.

(ii) On the death of a widow, her share of the family pension shall become payable to her eligible child :

Provided that if the widow is not survived by any child, her share of family pension shall be payable to the other widows in equal shares or if there is only one such widow, in full to her.

(b) Where the deceased Government servant or pensioner is survived by a widow but has left behind eligible child or children from another wife who is not alive, the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of family pension which the mother would have received if she had been alive at the time of the death of the Government servant





































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top