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

2020 Supreme(Mad) 1780

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.P. SAHI, SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, JJ.
G. Minnoli – Appellant
Versus
The Accountant General A & E), Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.A. No. 906 of 2020
Decided on : 30-09-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :R. Prem Narayan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Hema Muralikrishnan, Sr. Stdg. Counsel, S. Kamalesh Kannan, Govt. Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the question of marriage and the resumption of family pension should be decided in accordance with the applicable rules and laws, and the matter should be remanded for a fresh decision.

Headnote:

Marriage - Family Pension - Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 - Hindu Marriage Act - Special Marriage Act, 1954 - [Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978] - The court discussed the appellant's marriage, representation for family pension, rejection of the request, and the applicability of the Hindu Marriage Act and Special Marriage Act. The court remanded the matter for a fresh decision by the Accountant General.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant claimed family pension after the death of her husband, representing herself as remarried to Mr. Aseef. The request was rejected, and the writ petition was dismissed, stating that as per the Hindu Marriage Act, she had no right to claim anything from her first marriage.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the question of marriage could only be decided in a civil court or a court of competent jurisdiction. It also noted that the question of resumption of family pension in favor of the appellant had not been examined properly.

Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's remarriage representation, rejection of the family pension request, and the applicability of the Hindu Marriage Act and Special Marriage Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the question of marriage could only be decided in a civil court or a court of competent jurisdiction. It also found that the question of resumption of family pension in favor of the appellant had not been examined properly.

Final Decision: The court remanded the matter back to the Accountant General for a fresh decision within three months.

JUDGMENT :

A.P. Sahi, J.

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 20.07.2018 passed in W.P.No.28357 of 2008 on the file of this Court.)

1. This is a very peculiar case on the given facts where the appellant is said to have married one R.Govindarajan in 1985 and a male child was born from the wedlock, who was earlier named as Ramkumar and is stated to be now known as G.Ravikumar.

2. The appellant herself discloses that she started living with one Mr.K.H.Aseef after the death of her husband, which she now describes not to be a valid marriage. But, in order to continue to receive the family pension after the death of her husband, she represented herself voluntarily before the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department that she got remarried on 25.11.1991 to Mr.Aseef and therefore, the pension may now be continued in favour of her then minor son whose date of birth is 19.07.1986. Acting upon the said representation of the appellant, the Superintending Engineer passed an order on 18.07.1992 in terms of Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 extending the benefit of family pension to be paid to the said minor under the guardianship of his mother. The son became a major and continued to receive family pension. 3.It appears that the appellant moved an application on 15.11.2006 that was forwarded by the Executive Engineer to the Accountant General on 29.01.2007 recommending the continuance of pension in appellant's favour instead of her son. The said letter is extracted hereinunder:-

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

FROM

TO

Er.P.Balasubramanian, B.E., The Accountant General (A & E),

Executive Enginer, PWD, WRO, Tamilnadu, 361, Anna Salai,

Aliyar Basin Division, Chennai 600 018.

Pollachi 642 003.

Letter No. AD1/139/06(3182) Dated 29.01.2007

Sir,

Sub: Pension – Family – G.Minnoli, Wife of Late R.Govindarajan, Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. - Udumalpet Division, Udumalpet Died on 20.11.1986 wile in Service - Contract Dated 25.11.1991 with enter into marriage – Not materialized – Pension Payment Order No.65708/FA Dated 4.10.1984 – payment of Family Pension to me – Requested – Regarding.

Ref: 1)Letter No.EA1/4503/92-1 Dated 18.7.92 of the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D., Parambikulam Aliyar Basin Circle, Pollachi to the Chief Engineer (General) P.W.D., Madras (copy enclosed). 2)Letter No.E.III (2)/820020/92-1 Dated 13.10.92 of the Chief Engineer (General), P.W.D., Chepauk, Chennai-5 addressed to the Accountant General, Chennai-18. 3)Tmt.G.Minnoli, Assistant, Application dated 15.11.2006. -----------

Sir,

I enclose one application (with enclosure) received from Tmt.G.Minnoli, Assistant, W/o.Late Thiru R.Govindarajan, Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. requesting for the payment of Family Pension with effect from 19.7.04 onwards.

In this regard, I have to state that Tmt.G.Minnoli, W/o.(Late) Thiru.R.Govindarajan, was sanctioned Family Pension by the Accountant General with effect from 21.11.1986, vide PPO No.65708/FA, consequent on the death of her husband Thiru.R.Govindarajan, Assistant Engineer, on 20.11.86 while he was in service.

Subsequently the Family Pension was sanctioned to her son selvan G.Ramkumar (now known as G.Ravikumar) born thro' her husband Thiru.R.Govindarajan with effect from 25.11.91 as per request and as recommended by the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D., Parambikulam Aliyar Basin Circle, Pollachi, in reference (1) cited.

As the Agreement made between K.H.Aseef and Tmt.G.Minnoli, Assistant on 25.11.91 was a contact with enter into marriage and the Agreement did not become actual fact and put into practice, and she is not interested in the remarriage in future and not got remarried so far, she has requested to sanction the Family Pension to her with effect from 19.7.2004 onwards.

I request that the application of Tmt.G.Minnoli, Assistant, P.W.D. of this office may kindly be complied with and necessary authorization may please be issued for the payment of Family Pension to her with effect from 19.7.2004 onward

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top