ORDER :

Petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition seeking to quash the order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the 3rd Respondent vide Ka.No.010206/411/Ni.Bi.2(2)/Ko.Oivu/2020, and for a direction to the Respondents to disburse family pension and other related pensionary benefits including the life time pending arrears to her.

2. According to the Petitioner, her husband Late S.Kaliyaperumal worked as Foreman I Grade in the Kumbakonam Branch of the Respondent/TANGEDCO and after putting 33 years of service, he retired on 31.03.2004. After his retirement, he was receiving pension in his Bank Account from TANGEDCO Pensioners' Family Security Fund and lifetime arrears of pension from TANGEDCO vide PP.O.No.52572 and his monthly pension was credited to his S.B. Account in Indian Overseas Bank, Gandhi Salai Branch, Kumbakonam.

3. It is further stated by the Petitioner that, in the Pension Account, her husband has mentioned one Mrs.Susila, who is his first wife, as his nominee. The said Susila is none other than the Petitioner’s own sister. As Susila predeceased the Petitioner's husband on 21.02.2009 due to illness, the Petitioner's husband made an Application in 2015 for change in the details of nominee in his Account and requested for updating the name of the Petitioner in the nominee details in respect of his pension Account. While so, the Petitioner's husband died on 11.01.2015, leaving behind him, the Petitioner, three sons and three daughters, as his legal heirs. As all her sons and daughters got married and settled with their family, the Petitioner is greatly dependent on her husband’s pensionary benefits.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that, after the death of her husband, Provident Fund and other amount from his Pension Account was not withdrawn from his Bank Account. Due to non-withdrawal of pension from his Account, the Bank has kept the Account as 'Inactive' and the same is in non-operational stage. As the Petitioner's Application to the Respondents seeking withdrawal of pension amount from his Account, stood rejected, having no other alternative, she has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.

6. Admittedly, the Petitioner is the sister of her husband's first wife. Though, it has been stated by the Petitioner that, her sister Susila was suffering from cancer and hence, she was asked to marry her husband, both the said Susila and the Petitioner herein lived together under one roof, after the marriage of the Petitioner with the deceased. It is not in dispute that, the first wife of the Petitioner's husband pre-deceased the Petitioner's husband, due to illness. Hence, according to the Petitioner, she is entitled to pension and other retirement benefits of her husband in terms of Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 (in short 'Rules'). Also, it is stated that, the children of the deceased have no objection for the Petitioner getting the terminal benefits of the deceased, including pension. The Rule applicable to the employees of the Respondent Board is very old. But, Rule 49(7) of the said Rules states that, there should be a valid marriage.

7. For better appreciation, Rule 49(7) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, is extracted hereunder:

“(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 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 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 wou