IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.07.2009
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR
W.P.No. 44432 of 2006
.......
1.Mrs. Mangai ammal
2.Kanniappan
3.R. Manjula
4. Sudha
5. Latha (Minor)
6. Revathi (Minor )
7. Bharathi (Minor)
Minor daughters and son P6 & P7 are
rep by mother and Natural guardian,
third petitioner). .... Petitioners
Vs
1.The Asst Director
Animal Husbandary Department
Nandanam, Chennai-35
2.The Director,
Animal Husbandary Department,
Madras-6
3.The Pension Pay Officer,
Nandanam,
Chennai.6.
4. The Principal Accountant General
(Accounts and Entitlement),
Tamil Nadu, Chennai.18.
(R3 & R4 impleaded as per order
dated 1.12.2008 in MP No. 2/2008) .... Respondents
......
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue letter of sanction of family pension to the petitioners appropriately.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Loganathan
For Respondents : Mr.L.M.S.Hassan Fizal.
Government Advocate R1 & R2
No Appearance R3
Mr. Vijay Shankar R4.
ORDER
The case of the petitioners is that late Patchaiappan retired from service on 30.6.1997 and received all retirement benefits. He also received pension till his death. After his death on 31.10.2005, according to the department, one Veerammal is the wife of late Patchaiappan. This is evident from the family card and the papers forwarded by late Patchaiappan at the time of getting retirement benefits. Therefore, the claim of the present petitioners was not accepted. On the death of Patchaiappan, on 17.3.2006, a legal heir certificate has been issued by the Tahsildar, Chengi, in pa.mu.(A5)/325/01 wherein, the first petitioner is shown as wife of late Patchaiappan and Kanniappan is shown as son of late Patchaiappan and four other persons are shown as grandchildren of Patchaiappan through the son Ramalingam and grand children of Mangaiammal, first petitioner. The department took a stand that nowhere in the papers submitted by late employee, there is a reference about the first petitioner Mangaiammal and others and therefore, they cannot claim as persons eligible for receiving family pension. Respondents 3 and 4 were impleded by the order of this Court dated 1.12.2008. The third respondent is the pension payment officer and the 4th respondent is the Principal Accountant General.
2. The 4th respondent filed a counter stating that if necessary corrections are made in the service records of the deceased Patchaiappan to show that the first petitioner is the wife of the deceased Government servant then necessary steps will be taken for issuance of family pension.
3. The first respondent on the other hand filed a counter wherein, in paragraphs 4 and 5, it is stated as follows:-
” It is submitted that Thiru P. Pachaiyappan (Late) while submitting his pension proposals, he mentioned his residential address as 61/12, Sathiyamoorthy Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai.35 and also furnished the details regarding his family as follows:-
1.Tmt. Veerammal 52 years - wife 2.Thiru Kanniappan 39 years - Son 3. Thiru Ramalingam 34 years - Son
It is submitted that Thiru P. Pachaiyappan (late) has nominated the above individuals as his nominees to receive the pensionery benefits in the event of his death.
It is submitted that the averments made in the para 5 of the affidavit, as per the nomination, Tmt. Veeramal is the wife of the deceased pensioner. As per the legal heir certificate obtained from Tahsildar, Mylapore/Triplicane Taluk, Chennai.28, dated 23.1.2006, it has been stated that Tmt. Veeramal is the legal heir of the deceased pensioner (i.e. Thiru P. Pachaiappan (late) and the certificate issued by the competent authority for the purpose of pension, bank and transfer of property. So the question of any other legal heir does not arise.”
4. In paragraph 4 of the counter, as stated above, the name of Kanniappan is shown as son of deceased Patchaiappan and this is supported by the legal heir certificate dated 17.3.2006. The veracity of the document and the claim of Kanniappan as a son of late Patchaiappan has to be verified by the competent authorities at the appropriate time.
5. For the present issue, this Court is of the view that it would suffice, if the first respondent is directed to reconsider the claim of the second petitioner for family pension taking into consideration the fact that he claims to be a disabled person suffering from total loss of sight.
6. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits on instruction that if proper document is filed by the second petitioner, the same can be considered if otherwise eligible. In any event, a proposal has to be forwarded by the first respondent based on the material to be produced by the second petitioner through his care taker to consider his plea for family pension and on the basis of his blindness. This aspect has not been brought to the attention of the authorities earlier. It is only the first petitioner, who has made a claim and that was rejected by the department on the ground that one Veerammal is shown as the wife of the deceased employee and therefore, there is a dispute with regard to the claim of the first petitioner resulting in the rejection of the claim.
7. In such circumstances, considering the 2nd respondent plea as legal heir, the first respondent in particular and the other respondents are directed to consider the claim of the second petitioner Kanniappan, who is said to be a disabled person suffering from loss of sight, for family pension on the basis of the representation if made with supporting documents. Such representation shall be made along with the copy of this order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The first respondent is also directed to process the papers as expeditiously as possible preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. The fourth respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.
ra
To
1. The Asst Director
Animal Husbandary Department
Nandanam, Chennai-35
2. The Director,
Animal Husbandary Department,
Madras-6
3. The Pension Pay Officer,
Nandanam,
Chennai.6.
4. The Principal Accountant General
(Accounts and Entitlement),
Tamil Nadu,
Chennai 18