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

2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 19263

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Rajaselvi – Appellant
Versus
The Principal Accountant Gen – Respondent



Dependency on the pensioner during their lifetime is a prerequisite for claiming family pension, regardless of the claimant's marital status or disability.

Headnote:

Pension - Family Pension - G.O.Ms.No.337, G.O.Ms.No.325 - The G.O. stipulates dependency of the claimant on the pensioner for eligibility for family pension; the court held that the petitioner was not dependent on her parents at the time of their death.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a physically challenged widowed daughter, sought family pension after her parents' deaths. The third respondent rejected her request, stating she was not dependent on her parents during their lifetime.

Finding of the Court:

The court examined the legal provisions and concluded that under the applicable government order, dependency was a prerequisite for pension eligibility. The petitioner did not meet this criterion.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was eligible for family pension based on her disability and widowed status despite not being dependent on her parents while they were alive.

Ratio Decidendi: The essential ratio is that dependency on the pensioner during their lifetime is necessary to qualify for family pension benefits as stipulated by G.O.Ms.No.337.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.

ORDER

The instant Writ Petition has been filed by a widowed daughter, challenging the order passed by the third respondent herein, rejecting the request of the writ petitioner, seeking family pension.

2. The petitioner's father was working as a Drawing Master in a private aided school and he attained superannuation on 30.04.1993. The petitioner's father and mother passed away on 21.12.2018, leaving behind their daughters, namely, (1) Rajaselvi (petitioner), (2) Ramapushkala, (3)

Rajeswari and (4) Ramasubha.

3. The petitioner lost her husband on 15.02.2020. The petitioner is also a physically challenged person. Being a disabled widowed daughter, she approached the respondent authorities for recommending her name for receipt of family pension, based on G.O.Ms.No.65, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 10.03.2003. On 26.04.2022, the third respondent has passed the impugned order, rejecting the request of the petitioner on the ground that during the lifetime of her father and mother, she was not dependent upon them. In fact, she had lost her husband two years after the death of her parents. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, as per G.O.Ms.No.325, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 28.11.2011, the petitioner is eligible for receipt of family pension after the death of her mother, in view of the fact that she is not only disabled but also a widowed daughter.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents pointed out that G.O.Ms.No.325, Finance (Pension) Department, 28.11.2011, has been superseded by G.O.Ms.No.337, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 14.11.2017, and, as per the said Government Order, unless the person, claiming family pension, was dependent upon the deceased family pensioner while the family pensioner was alive, the question of extending the benefit of family pension to that particular person would not arise. The learned Additional Government Pleader also relied upon a judgment of a single judge of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.9290 of 2024, dated 16.04.2024, in support of his case.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also perused the material available on record.

7. The petitioner's father had retired from service on 30.04.1993 and both of her parents died on 21.12.2018. The petitioner's husband also passed away on 15.02.2020. The petitioner is a physically challenged person.

These facts are not in dispute.

8. When the parents of the petitioner had passed away, the G.O.Ms.No.337, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 14.11.2017, was in force. A perusal of the said G.O. reveals that unmarried/widowed/divorced daughters, even after attaining the age of 25 years, would be eligible to receive family pension, provided they were wholly dependent upon the Government servant / Pensioner ,when he/she was alive. Therefore, it is clear that unless a person, claiming family pension, was dependent upon the pensioner/family pensioner during his or her lifetime, the said person would not be entitled to seek family pension. In the present case, the petitioner was not dependent upon her father or mother during their lifetime. She lost her husband two years after the date of death of her parents.

9. Based upon the physical disability or marital status of the petitioner, if family pension is extended to the petitioner, it will result in reviving of the stopped pensions after so many years in favour of daughters, who lost their husbands at a later point of time. Therefore, such an interpretation is not legally sustainable.

10. In view of the above deliberations, there is no merit in the present Writ Petition. Writ Petition stands dismissed accordingly. No costs.

12.08.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No dixit To:

1.The Principal Accountant General, (A and E) Tamilnadu, No.361, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 018.

2.The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli - 627

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