The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Rule 49 (7) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, the surviving legal heir, in this case, the second wife, is entitled to family pension if the first wife pre-deceased the deceased government servant.

The petitioner is the second wife of Late. Sriramulu, who retired as Teacher from Thenmudiyanur Government Elementary School, Thiruvannamalai District on 01.11.1978. It is the contention of the petitioner that the deceased Sriramulu married her as his second wife in the year 1961 and such marriage was solemnised with the consent of the first wife namely Krishnaveni. Out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the deceased, 2 sons and 2 daughters have born. As far as the pensionary benefits are concerned, after retirement, the said Sriramulu was in receipt of pension at the rate of Rs.120/- per month. On 25.09.2009, the first wife Krishnaveni died. On 25.12.2008, the said Sriramulu died and prior to his death, he was in receipt of pension at the rate of Rs.4,240/-. On his death, the Directorate of Pension issued a cheque dated 03.09.2009 for Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner towards the lumpsum grant under the Tamil Nadu Government Pensioner's Family Security Fund Scheme. However, family pension was not paid to the petitioner despite her repeated request.

2. According to the petitioner, she married the deceased Sriramulu in the year 1961. Though at that time, his first wife was Krishnaveni was alive, she gave consent for the marriage of the petitioner as second wife to the deceased. Therefore, at that time, the name of the petitioner was not included in the service register of the deceased maintained by his employer. Further, at the time of the death of the deceased, the first wife was not alive, therefore, the petitioner claims that she and her four children are the legal heirs to succeed to the estate of the deceased. The petitioner also obtained legal heir certificate in which the petitioner and her four children alone were shown as legal heirs of the deceased. Therefore, as legal heir, the petitioner sent repeated representations to the respondents by enclosing the legal heir certificate and sought for disbursement of family pension to her. As there was no response, the petitioner sent a notice through a lawyer on 10.11.2009 but there was no response. The petitioner also wrote a letter dated 22.11.2010 to the first respondent to release the family pension, but there was no response. In the meantime, the petitioner has sent a representation dated 10.08.2010 to the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister's Grievance Cell and it was forwarded to the Director of Primary Education, Chennai to take necessary action on the petitioner's representation. On 14.09.2010, the Director of Primary Education forwarded the representation of the petitioner to the District Educational Officer, Thiruvannamalai and to submit a report. Accordingly, on 17.09.2010, the Additional Primary Educational Officer, Thandarampattu sent a letter to the first respondent recommending to release the family pension to the petitioner. Despite the same, the first respondent refused to pay family pension to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner married the deceased when the marriage of the deceased with his first wife Krishnaveni was subsisting. The first respondent also called upon the petitioner to submit certain details as to whether the first wife was alive as on date and also to furnish the correct date of the marriage of the petitioner with the deceased. Immediately, the petitioner furnished such details to the Additional Primary Educational Officer, who in turn forwarded the same to the first respondent on 06.07.2011. However, according to the petitioner, the respondents did not pass any orders granting family pension in her favour, hence, she has come forward with this writ petition seeking appropriate direction to the respondents to release the pension amount to her on the death of the deceased Sri Ramulu.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the only surviving legal heir on the death of the deceased government servant and therefore, she is entitled for payment of family pension. The petitioner also forwarded the legal