Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
V. Deva Pitchai – Appellant
Versus
The Internal Audit Officer, Board Audit Office, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P.(MD) No. 7266 of 2023
Decided On : 05-09-2023
Family Pension - Marital Status - Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, Rule 49(11-A) - The court discussed the marital status of the petitioner and her deceased husband, as well as the relevant service rules governing the grant of family pension. The court highlighted the documents and representations submitted by the deceased employee, which influenced the decision to reject the petitioner's claim for family pension.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the wife of a deceased employee, sought family pension and related benefits. The respondents rejected her request based on the marital status of the petitioner and the representations made by the deceased employee.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decree of declaration declaring the petitioner as not the wife of the deceased employee was still in force, and the deceased employee had consciously refrained from contributing towards the Family Security Fund Scheme. The court concluded that the rejection of the petitioner's claim for family pension need not be interfered with, as the benefit had been cancelled by the deceased employee himself before his death.
Issues: Marital status of the petitioner, entitlement to family pension, representations made by the deceased employee, application of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the documents and representations submitted by the deceased employee to determine the marital status and entitlement to family pension of the petitioner. The conscious decision of the deceased employee to cancel the benefit of family pension was a key factor in the court's decision.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the court held that the rejection of the petitioner's claim for family pension need not be interfered with, as the benefit had been cancelled by the deceased employee himself before his death.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent in his proceedings in letter No. Ku.Tha.Po/Thiru/Vu.6/Aa No. 3545/2022 dated 29.10.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to disburse the Family Pension and other related pensionary benefits including arrears of payments to the petitioner within the time stipulated by this Court.)
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent vide proceedings in letter No. Ku.Tha.Po/Thiru/Vu.6/Aa No. 3545/2022 dated 29.10.2022 and consequently direct the respondents to disburse the Family Pension and other related pensionary benefits including arrears of payments to the petitioner within the time stipulated by this Court.
2. Heard Mr.P.Mahendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.M.Parameswari, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
3. The petitioner is the wife of one T.Selvanayagam, who was working with the respondent Board as an Account Supervisor. The petitioner belonged to the Christian Community. The marriage between the petitioner and her husband T.Selvanayagam was solemnized on 20.04.1967 and the same was an arranged marriage. The marriage between the petitioner and her husband was duly registered before the office of the Sub-Registrar, Srivilliputhur vide Document No.43 of 1967. However, the petitioner and her husband had no children. In the course of their matrimonial life indifference crept in between them, as a result of which the petitioner''s husband filed a suit in O.S.No.482 of 1987 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif at Srivilliputhur seeking to declare that the petitioner was not his wife and the same was decreed as prayed for on 24.07.1989. However, the said dissolution of marriage was not on the ground of adultery but on the basis of mutual consent between the parties. That apart even after that either the petitioner or her husband got remarried with any other person and both the petitioner and her husband were living separately.
4. During the period in the year 1992, the petitioner got reunited with her husband and got remarried as per their customs at Lord''s Grace A.C Church, North Malayadipatti, Rajapalayam. While so, on 30.06.1994 the petitioner''s husband attained his age of superannuation and retired from service of the respondent Board on 30.06.1994. After his retirement, the petitioner''s husband received his terminal benefits and pension from the TANGEDCO Pensioners Family Security Fund and lifetime arrears of pension from the said Corporation. During the year 2020, suddenly, the petitioner''s husband succumbed to paralytic stroke. Since they did not have any male assistant to immediately take care of themselves, they went to Chennai wherein the petitioner''s husband''s brother namely Jayadas, was residing at Plot No.4A, Ambattur Chennai. However, on 02.05.2021, the petitioner''s husband passed away. Having obtained the Death Certificate and legal heir certificate, the petitioner approached the first respondent to grant family pension, since she has been nominated as a nominee of her husband T.Selvanayagam. A detailed representation dated 30.04.2022 was preferred by the petitioner to the respondents 2 and 3 requesting to grant family pension from 02.05.2021. However, the petitioner''s request was rejected by the second respondent by the impugned proceedings in Letter No.Ku.Tha.Po/Thiru/Vu.6/Aa No.3545/2022, dated 29.10.2022 on the ground that the petitioner got divorced during the year 1989 and hence she is not eligible for payment of family pension, in which she was also advised to get necessary orders from the Court. Assailing the same, this Writ Pe
The conscious actions and representations of the deceased employee regarding the family pension benefit influenced the court's decision on the petitioner's entitlement to family pension.
Family pension is payable only to the legally wedded spouse of an employee, and second marriage during the lifetime of the first spouse makes the petitioner ineligible for family pension under the pe....
The validity of a marriage under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and its impact on entitlement to family pension.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and relevant government orders, a petitioner may not be eligible for further family pension if they are alr....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
