Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
V.Ganthimathi – Appellant
Vs.
The Internal Audit Officer (Pension) – Respondent
W.P(MD)No.3637 of 2016
Decided on : 01-11-2023
FAMILY PENSION - Writ Petition for Family Pension - Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 - The court examined the validity of the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased employee, Vaalvangoo, in light of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. It interpreted that long cohabitation post the first wife's death, along with the birth of children, established a de facto marriage, thus entitling the petitioner to family pension despite the initial invalidity of the marriage. The court emphasized the importance of recognizing the realities of long-term relationships in determining legal rights to pension benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Ganthimathi, sought to quash an order denying her family pension following the death of her husband, Vaalvangoo, who had previously been married to Muthammal. Vaalvangoo and Ganthimathi lived together for nearly 25 years after Muthammal's death, during which they had three children. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board rejected her claim based on the argument that their marriage was invalid due to its occurrence during Muthammal's lifetime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the long cohabitation of the petitioner with Vaalvangoo after the death of his first wife, along with the birth of their children, established a significant relationship that warranted recognition for the purpose of family pension. The court concluded that the previous ruling denying her pension was incorrect and did not consider the unique circumstances of their relationship.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to family pension despite the initial invalidity of her marriage to Vaalvangoo due to the subsistence of his first marriage at the time of their union.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that long-term cohabitation and the birth of children create a presumption of marriage, which can establish rights to family pension. The court emphasized that the realities of the relationship should be recognized, particularly when the first marriage had ended prior to the claim for pension benefits.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and directed the disbursement of family pension to the petitioner from the date of her husband's death, within twelve weeks.
ORDER :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order made in Lr.No.044779/946/F8/F83/PPO No.37486/2015 dated 02.11.2015 passed by the first respondent and to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents herein to provide the family pension to the petitioner herein with arrears from the date of death of her husband i.e., from 06.07.2014 and other monetary benefits.
This writ petitioner seeks for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order of the first respondent in Lr.No.044779/946/F8/F83/PPO No.37486/2015 dated 02.11.2015, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondents herein to provide the family pension to the petitioner herein with arrears from the date of death of her husband i.e., from 06.07.2014 and other monetary benefits.
2. The facts leading to the Writ Petition :
The writ petitioner's husband, namely, Vaalvangoo, was working as a Line Inspector in the Thoothukudi Division of the TANGEDCO. He retired from service on 31.03.2001. He was receiving pension till his death on 06.07.2014. The said Vaalvangoo had been previously married with one Muthammal who passed away on 12.12.1989. The said Vaalvangoo lived with the petitioner till his death on 06.07.2014. From the wedlock between the writ petitioner and the deceased employee Vaalvangoo, three children were born. They are Ulagammal, Ganesan and Vanuvamalai. The request for family pension was returned by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board under the impugned order. As per the impugned order, the Writ Petitioner was directed to approach the Court and obtain the remedy for pension. The impugned order did not dispute the relationship between the petitioner and Vaalvangoo, but, on the contrary, had taken a view that since Vaalvangoo had married the writ petitioner, when Muthammal was alive, the marriage is invalid. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
3. Heard Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.Parameswari, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record.
4. A perusal of the counter filed by the respondent shows that the date of death of Muthammal is not denied. It is also not denied that Muthammal was mentally insane as alleged by the petitioner.
5. Ms.Parameswari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents relied upon paragraph No.28 and vehemently argued that the writ petitioner is not entitled to family pension. She pointed out that there is no difference between the case in 2018-1-Writ L.R. 725 and the case on hand.
6. It is true, as argued by Ms.Parameswari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents based on the Division Bench judgment in K.Rajathi Vs. The Superintendent Engineer, TANGEDCO Ltd., Nagapattinam Circle, Nagapattinam District and another reported in 2018-1-Writ L.R. 725, that the second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage falls foul of Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and therefore, the second wife will not be entitled to pension. However, the fact that Vaalvangoo and Muthammal were living as man and wife, post death of first wife Muthammal from 12.12.1989 till his death on 06.07.2014 has been admitted. This is a very unique situation where after the death of the first wife, the relationship between the writ petitioner and the deceased employee Vaalvangoo continued for a period of nearly 25 years.
7. In similar circumstances, My Brother, Mr.Justice N.Anand Venkatesh, was pleased to hold that where man and wife had been living for a long time and from that relationship, children have been born, such female would be entitled to receive the benefit of family pension. This view was taken in W.P.34952 of 2019 dated 23.01.2020. The learned Single Judge wa
Long cohabitation and the birth of children can establish a de facto marriage, entitling a partner to family pension benefits, even if the marriage was initially invalid due to the subsistence of a p....
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 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.
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.
Pension is a protected right under Article 300-A of the Constitution; denial of family pension to a legally wedded second wife without due process violates principles of natural justice.
Pension benefits cannot be adjudicated through writ jurisdiction in the presence of competing marriage claims; a definitive legal spouse must be established in civil court settings.
Unchallenged civil court declaration of legal wedlock binds employer-participant via estoppel and res judicata for family pension, overriding non-notification under pension rules.
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
