IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :01.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

K.Devaki Amma ... Petitioner

vs

1. The Secretary to Government,

Transport Department,

Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2. The Managing Director,

Metropolitan Transport Corporation

(Chennai) Ltd.,

“Pallavan House”,

Anna Saalai,

Chennai – 600 002. … Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent made in the proceedings No.6002/O.Na.Tha.Pi/ ma.po.ka./2019 dated 09.08.2019, quash the same and directing the respondents to grant Family Pension to the petitioner from the date following the date of death of her husband

viz., with effect from 08.04.1998 instead of 07.03.2001, with consequential arrears of Family Pension, within the time limit as fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Varun for Mr.R.Baskardoss For Respondents : Mr.A.Vinothraj Standing Counsel

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that her husband was in regular employment of the respondent Corporation during the period 1972-1987; that, after retiring from service, he was granted pension; that he had deceased on 07.04.1988; that on his death, she is entitled for being granted family pension; that as the respondent failed to make payment of family pension, she had approached this Court and filed writ petition vide W.P.No.38382 of 2002 and this Court, by order dated 20.12.2002, directed the respondent to grant family pension under the existing Pension Rules to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months.

3. The petitioner further contends that the respondent vide proceedings dated

27.10.2003, granted family pension for a sum of Rs.1275/-, the same was granted with effect from 07.03.2001, instead of date of death of her husband i.e., 07.04.1988.

4. The petitioner further contended that though the respondent while granting family pension, had placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.327 dated 30.08.2001, and claimed that the same is subject to fulfilment of conditions prescribed therein, a similar condition imposed vide para 10 of G.O.Ms.No.110, Transport Department, dated 08.04.1988 and G.O.Ms.No.189 dated 06.03.2001 were struck down by this Court in W.P.No.482 of 2008 dated 23.06.2009 and as such, the respondents are liable to pay family pension from the date of death of her husband i.e., with effect from 07.04.1988.

5. Counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent is filed.

6. The respondent primarily contended that the petitioner had approached this Court by the present writ petition with a substantial delay and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for being granted any relief.

7. I have taken note of the respective contentions as urged.

8. At the outset, it is to be noted that a duty is cast upon the respondents to grant family pension to the family of the deceased employee. The respondents having failed to grant family pension on the death of the petitioner husband, who admittedly, was an ex-employee of the Respondent, firstly, forced the petitioner to approach this Court, by filing Writ Petition vide W.P.No.38382 of 2002, wherein this Court had passed order on 20.12.2002 directing the respondents to pay family pension to the petitioner. Though the respondents claim of making payment of family pension with effect from 07.03.2001, admittedly, the said date has no legal basis or sanctity to stand on its own, except being the date of order in a similar writ petition passed by this Court ie., W.P.No.21204 of 1992. It is to be noted that the date of judgment of this Court, cannot be taken as the date on which the liability to pay the family pension had arisen. On the other hand, the liability to pay family pension arises, when the deceased member of the respondent corporation who is