IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 19-02-2026 Pronounced on: 20-02-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WP No. 25234 of 2021 M.Seethalakshmi Petitioner Vs

1. The Principal Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlements)

361, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 018.

2.The Works Manager, Government Central Press, Chennai – 600 001.

Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned communication in No.P21 / 1 / 12124529 / ADK / 160, dated 22.10.2021 made by the 1^st respondent to the 2^nd respondent, rejecting the proposals for payment of Family Pension to the petitioner and quash the same and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to consider the proposal for grant family pension to the petitioner within the time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner: Ms.A.Monika for Mr.S.Sathia Chandran For Respondents: Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, Standing Counsel for R1 Mrs.V.Yamunadevi, Special Government Pleader for R2

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent and learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf the second respondent and perused the record. 2. The petitioner by the present writ petition has assailed the action of the first respondent in rejecting the proposal submitted by her for grant of family pension of her deceased father.

3. The case of the petitioner is that her father was working as junior foremen under the second respondent and got superannuated on 30.09.1984 and was drawing pension of Rs.373/- per month; that her father had deceased on 26.06.2013 at the age of 87 years, leaving behind the petitioner, two brothers and two sisters; and that her mother predeceased her father.

4. The petitioner further contended that though she was married, as her husband had suffered heart attack and underwent heart surgery, she and her husband were living with her father who supported them financially and thus, the petitioner and her husband were fully dependant on her father.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that her brothers are married and settled with their respective families, while elder sister is married and is living with her family in Thanjavur and that her other sister who is a widow is living in Tambaram, Chennai with her children who take care of all her needs.

6. Petitioner contended that while she and her husband both were fully dependant on her father during his lifetime, after the death of her father, the petitioner and her husband who was unwell, were left with no support; that after about one year, nine months after the death of her father, her husband also passed away on 18.03.2015 due to health complications, leaving behind herself and an unmarried son; and that after the death of her husband, the family is economically struggling to meet the needs.

7. It is the further case of the petitioner that as per GO No.325, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 28.11.2011, she being a widowed daughter of government employees, is entitled for being granted family pension; that she accordingly, submitted an application dated 16.09.2021 to the first respondent through second respondent; that while the petitioner was waiting for grant of family pension of her father, she was shocked to receive a copy Communication dated 22.10.2021 (received on 05.11.2021) addressed by the first respondent to the second respondent, rejecting the application submitted by her for grant of family pension, stating that her widowed elder sister living, in the order of birth, is entitled for grant of family pension; and that she is not entitled for grant of family pension.

8. The petitioner further contended that since, the purport G.O.No.325, dated 28.11.2011 for granting family pension to widowed daughter, being a benevolent executive direction, the respondents could not have rejected her application for grant of