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

2025 Supreme(Mad) 3977

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, J.
M. Palani - Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Finance and Pension Department and ors. - Respondents
W.P.No.32939 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.35750 of 2024
Decided On : 20-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.S.Kamalesh Kannan
For the Respondent: Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru, Special Government Pleader, Ms. S. Brindaa, Standing Counsel

Eligibility for family pension includes second wives if marriages are registered and valid under law.

Headnote:This judgment concerns a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash an impugned order relating to family pension benefits. The court finds the petitioner eligible for including his second wife's name in the Family Pension Scheme based on verified marriage and cohabitation. The legal framework emphasizes adherence to rules regarding family pensions under applicable statutes. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the previous order and directing compliance for inclusion of the name within a specified period.

ORDER :

V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the 5th respondent in Na.Ka.No.1407/A3/2023, dated 29.11.2023 and for a direction to the respondents to include the name of the petitioner's wife Mrs.Shiyamala in the Family Pension Scheme of the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, he was working as a Teacher in the Government School. The petitioner had retired from service on 31.08.1998 and is granted the benefit of Family Pension since then. The petitioner has 5 daughters and 1 son. Out of the 6 children, 4 daughters were born to his first wife, Late Mrs.Govindammal and one daughter and a son were born to his second wife viz., Mrs.Shiyamala. During the lifetime of Late Mrs.Govindammal, due to her illness in health, the petitioner had to marry Mrs.Shiyamala under pressure and compulsion by Late Mrs.Govindammal, as she was under medication, continuous treatment and bedridden. After suffering sickness, Late Mrs.Govindammal demised on 01.10.1999. Since then, the petitioner is living with Mrs.Shiyamala and all the children are married and settled. Hence, to incorporate the name of Mrs.Shiyamala in the Family Pension Scheme, the petitioner made a representation on 27.09.2023, quoting the previous communications and proceedings of the department in Pen. 16/1/pt5608/14-15 122/9630 dated 15.10.2014, vide impugned order dated 29.11.2023 in Na.Ka.No.1407/A3/2023, the 5th respondent refused to grant the request of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. The Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit and submitted that, the Madurai Bench had passed an order in W.P (MD) No.16082 of 2014 dated 23.07.2019, dismissing the writ petition stating that, if it is found a Government servant entered bigamy, then necessary departmental action would be taken against the Government servant for such irregular action and criminal case would be registered against him/her as per Indian Penal Code . Necessary guidelines were issued by the Government vide their Letter No.29620/A-1/2019-3 dated 13.04.2022 Human Management, Department and G.O.Ms.No.906 Finance (Pension) Department dated 06.12.1995 with effect from 02.06.1992. In a similar case in R.Rajathi Vs The Superintendent Engineer Tengedoo and others in W.P.No.17648 of 2017 on 12.07.217, this Court had passed orders rejecting the claim of the 2nd wife for family pension. The Writ Appeal preferred by the said R.Rajathi in W.A.No.977 of 2017 was also dismissed by this Court on 05.06.2018.

4. The Learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that, in Rule 49(7) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978, the following were stated for grant of family pension.

“Rul e 49(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 would have received if she had been alive at the time of the death of the Government servant or pensioner.

[Provided that on the share or shares of family pension payable to child or children or to a widow or widows ceasing to be payable, such share or shares shall be payable to the other widow or widows and or to the other child or children otherwise eligible, in equal shares, or if there is only one widow, or child, in full, to such widow or child.]

(c) Where the deceased Government servant or pensioner is s

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top