Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA
Kamila Bagam S – Appellant
Versus
The Controller – Respondent
Pension - Family Pension - G.O.Ms.No.325; G.O.Ms.No.337 - The court interpreted the eligibility criteria for family pension under the relevant government orders, emphasizing dependence on the deceased and specific conditions for eligibility, ultimately concluding that the petitioner did not qualify for the pension.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the rejection of her family pension application based on government orders, claiming eligibility as a widowed daughter. Her father had died in 2000, and her marriage and husband’s subsequent death were pivotal in her claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the relevant government orders, confirming that the petitioner failed to show dependency on her deceased father at the time of his death and had not applied for pension until 2023, undermining her eligibility.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to family pension based on government orders concerning eligibility for widowed daughters and interpretation of dependence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that eligibility for family pension under the government orders requires demonstrable dependency on the deceased at the time of their death, which the petitioner did not establish.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
O R D E R
Heard Mr.M.Sheik Abdullah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Thirumoorthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in K.No.14648/2023/ 27.12.2023, which rejected her request for grant of family pension and issue a direction for sanctioning family pension to her as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.325, Finance Department, dated
28.11.2011.
3. The petitioner's father Syed Abubackar who worked as an Agri Supervisor in the second respondent Office retired on 30.04.1991. Subsequently, he died on 16.12.2000. The petitioner's mother pre- deceased the petitioner's father on 01.12.1998. The petitioner who already got married had became a widow on 06.06.2014, on which date her husband died. So the petitioner claiming herself as eligible to get family pension, had given a representation to the first respondent. However, the same was rejected vide the impugned order. Hence, the petition.
4. Mr.M.Sheik Abdullah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.325, Finance Department, dated 28.11.2011, the petitioner is entitled to get family pension. It is his submission that as per the above said Government Order , unmarried / widow / divorced daughters above 25 years are eligible to get family pension subject to other conditions.
5. The petitioner's claim for family pension was rejected by the first respondent through the impugned order dated 27.12.2023 by stating that as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.337, Finace [pay cell] Department dated 14.11.2017, the petitioner is not entitled for family pension.
6. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.337, Finace [pay cell]
Department dated 14.11.2017 has been issued for enhancement of income limit for the eligibility of Family Pension other than spouse. It is understood from the said Government Order that the unmarried son / unmarried daughter including widowed / divorced daughters, who are wholly dependent on the Government Servant / Pensioner and who are below 25 years are eligible to get family pension. However, it is also understood that the age limit of 25 years is not applicable to unmarried / widowed / divorced daughters who are wholly dependent on the Government Servant / Pensioner at the time when they die.
7. In the instant case, the petitioner's father died in the year
2000 and the petitioner's mother died in the year 1998. The petitioner got married subsequently and hence, she would only be depending upon her husband's income. So, the petitioner ceased to be a person who is depending upon her father at the relevant point of time when her father died.
8. Even though her mother and father passed away during the years 1998 and 2000 respectively, the petitioner did not make any application for family pension till the year 2023. This fact would only show that the petitioner was not depending upon her father's income and she was making her livelihood even after the death of her husband. Even if it is presumed that the petitioner is struggling for livelihood, it cannot be considered as a reason for providing her family pension as she had ceased to be a person who continues to be depending upon her father's income at the time when her father died. Since the petitioner had wrongly interpreted the provisions of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.337, Finace [pay cell] Department dated 14.11.2017 to the facts of her case, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted.
9. In view of the above stated reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
22.07.2024 NCC: Yes/No Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mbi R.N.MANJULA, J.
mbi
22.07.2024
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
