w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Govinthamal v/s The Senior Accounts Officer (Pension)O/o Principal Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlements) Chennai & Another

    W.P.No. 22886 of 2014

    Decided On, 14 July 2022

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM

    For the Petitioner: M/s. S.N. Ravichandran, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, T.S. Seva Rani, R2, A. Durai Eswar, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the proceedings 1st respondent vide Pen 34/1/pt 3614/14-15/43577 dated 14.07.2014 and quash the same consequently direct the 1st respondent to pay the family pension payable to the petitioner on the death of her son Soundarajan and stop the family pension which the petitioner is drawing on the death of her husband Karunakaran pursuant to the representation dated 12.06.2014.)

The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner to grant second family pension on condition that the petitioner was ready to forego the first family pension is under challenge in the present writ pension.

2. The writ petitioner states that her husband Late Mr.Karunakaran was working as Gangman Mazdoor in Highways Department. Her husband died on 10.12.1984, while he was service. Thus, the son of the writ petitioner was appointed in the Judicial Department on compassionate grounds. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was receiving family pension on account of the death of her husband. While receiving family pension her son was also appointed on compassionate ground. The son was working in the Judicial Department and unfortunately he also died on 27.04.2013. At the time of death, the son of the petitioner was junior Bailiff.

3. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Authorities to sanction family pension due to the death of her son. In her representation, she has stated that in the event of sanctioning family pension on account of the death of her son, she is ready to forego the family pension already she is receiving due to the death of her husband from the year 1984. It is an admitted fact that the writ petitioner is receiving family pension from the year 1984. The son died in the year 2013. Thus, the writ petitioner was receiving family pension for about 29 years, till such time, her son died on 27.04.2013.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that, when the representation is made that the petitioner is ready to forego the existing family pension in eve of the new family pension on account of the death of her son, the case of the writ petitioner ought to have been considered. Contrarily, the respondents have rejected the claim, on the ground that there is no provision for grant of family pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent/ Principal Accountant General of Tamil Nadu made a submission that the Pension Rules does not permit grant of family pension and there is no such provision to waive the first family pension under the rules.

6. As per the Rule 49(13)(b)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, the mother of the deceased unmarried Government servant is eligible for family pension in respect of her deceased son/daughter, only if she is declared to be detached on the deceased Government servant. In the present case, when the writ petitioner was receiving a family pension for about 29 years on account of the death of her husband, she is not a dependent as required for sanctioning of further family pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. In view of the above provision of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules the case of the writ petitioner was not considered for grant of family pension on account of death of her son.

7. Further as per G.O.Ms.No.327 Finance (Pension) Department dated 30.08.2001, Family pension shall be sanctioned to the parents subject to the following conditions:

(i) the parents were wholly dependent on the Government Servant, when he/she was alive and

(ii) the income criteria in respect of the parents will be Rs.2550/- per month. They will produce an annual certificate to the effect that their earning is not more than Rs.2550/- per month.

Subsequently, the Government enhanced the income limit from Rs.2550/- to Rs.7850/- in G.O.Ms.No.337 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 14.11.2017.”

8. The petitioner is already receiving the family pension in respect of her deceased husband which is more than minimum amount prescribed in the Government order. As of now, the minimum amount of pension is Rs.7850/-. When the writ petitioner is receiving more than a sum of Rs.7850/- as a family pension she is not eligible to claim any further family pension as she was not declared as the dependent of her deceased son.

9. On account of the fact that the writ petitioner was already receiving the family pension over and above the minimum pension fixed under the Government order, she was not considered as dependent on her son Late Shri.K.Soundararajan during his life time. Thus, the respondents arrived a conclu

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

sion that the petitioner is not entitled for family pension in respect of her son as she has not fulfilled the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.327 dated 14.11.2017 and also not eligible as per Rule 4949(13)(b)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu pension Rules 1978. 10. The petitioner could not able to establish any provision to waive the family pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. Thus, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the order passed. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
O R