{"id":228744,"date":"2006-12-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-12-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jegalingam-vs-the-director-of-pensions-on-15-december-2006"},"modified":"2016-03-31T23:49:35","modified_gmt":"2016-03-31T18:19:35","slug":"k-jegalingam-vs-the-director-of-pensions-on-15-december-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jegalingam-vs-the-director-of-pensions-on-15-december-2006","title":{"rendered":"K. Jegalingam vs The Director Of Pensions on 15 December, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
K. Jegalingam vs The Director Of Pensions on 15 December, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDated  : 15\/12\/2006\n\n\nCoram\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR\n\n\nW.P(MD)No.10144 of 2006\nand\nM.P.No.1\n\n\nK. Jegalingam\t\t\t\t...\t\t\tPetitioner\n\n\nVs.\n\n\n1.\tThe Director of Pensions,\n\tGovernment of Tamil Nadu,\n\tMadras - 2.\n\n2.\tThe Accountant General,\n\t(Accounts and Entitlements)\n\tOffice of the Accountant General,\n\t(Accounts and Entitlements),\n\tChennai - 18.\n\n3.\tDistrict Educational Officer,\n\tDepartment of Elementary Education,\n\tThallakulam,\n\tMadurai.\n\n4.\tThe Assistant Elementary Education Officer,\n\tThirupparankundram @ Thirunagar,\n\tMadurai.\t\t\t\t...\t\tRespondents\n\n\nPrayer\n\n\n\nWrit petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying\nthis Court to issue a writ of   mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to pay the\nfamily pension to the petitioner as per the Proviso to Sub-rule 6(iii) under\nRule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 from 17.2.2001 to till date and\nthroughout life in accordance with law within the time limit as this Court may\nimpose.\n\n\n!For Petitioner\t\t\t...\t\tMr.Arun Murugan\n\n\n^For Respondents 1,3,4\t\t...\t\tMr.K.Baskaran\n\t\t\t\t\t\tAddl.Government Pleader\n\nFor 2nd Respondent\t\t...\t\tMr.P.Gunasekaran\n\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tPrayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of   mandamus directing the
\n2nd respondent to pay the family pension to the petitioner as per the Proviso to
\nSub-rule 6(iii) under Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 from
\n17.2.2001 to till date and throughout life in accordance with law within the
\ntime limit as this Court may impose.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.\tThe brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as
\nfollows.\n<\/p>\n
\t(i)\tPetitioner’s mother by name Thillaivanam worked as Teacher in the
\ndepartment of School Education and she retired from service on 31.7.1992, after
\ntotal service of 37 years, 2 months and one day.  Petitioner’s mother was
\nsanctioned the retirement benefits including pension and she died on 17.2.2001.
\nDuring her life time, petitioner’s mother declared the petitioner as her sole
\nnominee to receive family pension after her death, as the petitioner is a
\nphysically handicapped person and also unemployed.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii)\tPetitioner is a physically disabled person, having 80% disability in
\nrelation to his lower limb, unable to earn his livelihood even after attaining
\nthe age of 25 years.  Therefore, petitioner submitted a representation citing
\nthe relevant Government Order and sub-rule 6(iii) of Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu
\nPension Rules, 1978, wherein it is stated that if a son or daughter of the
\nGovernment servant is suffering from disability of mind or physically crippled
\nand unable to earn livelihood after attaining the age of 25 years, family
\npension shall be payable to such son or daughter for life.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii)  It is the case of the petitioner that the Medical Board, Government
\nRajaji Hospital, Madurai issued a certificate on 14.8.2005 and certified that
\nthe petitioner is a disabled person with 80% disability in his lower limb. On
\n20.3.2001 petitioner submitted a representation for the sanction of family
\npension, for which he received a reply on 23.3.2001 from the 4th respondent
\nrequesting to produce the original death certificate, legal heirship
\ncertificate, pension passbook of the petitioner’s mother.  Petitioner sent the
\nsame and thereafter 4th respondent recommended to the second respondent for the
\nsanction of family pension to the petitioner through his proceedings
\nNa.Ka.No.1545\/B1\/03 dated 29.8.2003.  Petitioner also submitted grievance day
\npetition before the District Collector, Madurai and the same was also forwarded
\nto the second respondent in June, 2006.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv)\tThe Director of School Education in his proceedings dated 21.9.2004
\nrequested the third respondent to submit the proposal before him, who in turn
\nrequested the 4th respondent to forward the details.  The 4th respondent
\nforwarded all the details to the third respondent on 25.4.2004 and thereafter
\nthere is no progress in the matter even though petitioner submitted
\nrepresentations before the respondents 2 to 4 followed with counsel notice on
\n16.12.2005.  The Tahsildar, Madurai South also issued a certificate to the
\npetitioner on 26.10.2006 to the effect that the petitioner is having no source
\nof livelihood and he is an unemployed person.  Yet the family pension is not
\nsanctioned and hence the petitioner has chosen to file this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.\tThe second respondent filed counter affidavit wherein in para 4 it
\nis stated as follows,
\n\t“It is also submitted that Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.327 Finance
\n(Pension) Department dated 30.8.2001 amending Rule 49 of Tamil Nadu Pension
\nRules, 1978, wherein it was directed that in the case of sons\/daughters family
\npension shall be sanctioned till he\/she attains the age of 25 years or upto the
\ndate of his\/her marriage whichever is earlier.  Since the above G.O. Had not
\nspecified whether family pension is payable to married physically handicapped
\nson\/daughter this respondent had addressed Government for clarification vide
\nletter dated 2.12.2003 as to whether the physically handicapped son\/daughter of
\nthe deceased Government servant is not eligible for family pension from the date
\nof marriage.  Government had replied vide letter dated 13.9.2004 that the issue
\nis being examined separately and that necessary clarification would be issued
\nlater.  Reminder was also issued subsequently vide letter dated 28.9.2004 but
\nclarification in this regard is still awaited.  Conferring the family pension on
\nmarried son\/daughter is a policy decision to be taken by the Government of Tamil
\nNadu.  Therefore this Respondent cannot grant family pension without the
\nclarification\/ concurrence of the Government of Tamil Nadu.”\n<\/p>\n
\t4.\tThe learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Rule
\n49(6)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 mandates the respondents to
\nsanction family pension to the physically crippled or disabled son or daughter
\nof the deceased Pensioner, for life and the same can be stopped only if the son
\nor daughter starts earning his or her livelihood and so long as the petitioner
\ncontinues to be a physically crippled person and not earning for his livelihood,
\nthe respondents are bound to sanction the family pension under the said rule.
\nThe learned counsel also argued that the said rule is not amended even according
\nto the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent and only reason stated
\nin the counter affidavit is that the second respondent cannot grant family
\npension without clarification or concurrence of the Government of Tamil Nadu.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.\tThe learned counsel for the respondents argued that the
\norders\/clarification from the Government is awaited and thereafter only the
\npetitioner’s claim for the sanction of family pension from the date of the death
\nof the petitioner’s mother will be considered.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.\tI have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel
\nfor the petitioner as well as the respective respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.\tThe point in issue is whether the petitioner, who is a physically
\ndisabled son of the deceased pensioner, is entitled to get family pension from
\n18.2.2001, after the death of her mother as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules,
\n1978 ?\n<\/p>\n
\t8.\tThe facts in this case are not disputed.  Petitioner’s claim for
\nfamily pension was rightly recommended by the 4th respondent as early as on
\n29.8.2003 along with all the required enclosures.  The 4th respondent through
\nhis proceedings Na.Ka.No.1545\/A1\/03 dated 29.8.2003 submitted the proposals with
\nrecommendation to the second respondent to sanction family pension to the
\npetitioner from 18.2.2001.  The receipt of the said recommendation and proposal
\nis not denied by the second respondent in the counter affidavit.  The only
\nreason stated in the counter affidavit by the second respondent is that the
\nsecond respondent is awaiting clarification\/concurrence of the Government of
\nTamil Nadu.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.\tRule 49 of the Tamil nadu Pension Rules, 1978 is  governing the
\nsanction of pension and family pension.  Sub-rule (6) of Rule 49 is relevant to
\nthe case on hand, which reads as follows,
\n\t“49(6)\tThe period for which the family pension is payable shall be as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
(i) in the case of a widow or widower upto the date of death or remarriage,
\nwhichever is earlier;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  in the case of a son until he attains the age of twenty five years;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) in the case of an unmarried daughter, until she attains the age of twenty-
\nfive years or until she gets married whichever is earlier:
\nProvided that if the son or daughter of a Government Servant including the son
\nor daughter, born after retirement from the marriage solemnized before or after
\nretirement of a Government servant, is suffering from any disorder or disability
\nof mind including mentally retarded or is physically crippled or disabled,
\nwhether such handicap manifests before or after retirement or death while in
\nservice of a Government servant so as to render him or her unable to earn a
\nliving even after attaining the age of 25 years in the case of the sons and 25
\nyears in the case of the daughter, the family pension shall be payable to such
\nson or daughter for life subject to the following conditions, namely.-\n<\/p>\n
(i) if such son or daughter is one among two or more children of the Government
\nservant, the family pension shall be initially payable to the minor children in
\nthe order set out in clause (iii) of sub-rule (8) until the last minor child
\nattain the age of 25 and thereafter the family pension shall be resumed in
\nfavour of the son or daughter suffering from disorder or disability of mind or
\nwho is physically crippled or disabled and shall be payable to him\/her for
\nlife.”\n<\/p>\n
Further Rule 49(6)(vi) states,
\n“such daughter shall not be eligible for family pension from the date on which
\nshe gets married.”\n<\/p>\n
Nowhere in the rule it is stated that a physically disabled son will not be
\neligible to get family pension on his marriage.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.\tAdmittedly the above said rule mandates the respondents to sanction
\nfamily pension to the disabled or physically crippled son or daughter for life,
\nsubject to the condition that the family pension payable to such son or daughter
\nshall be stopped if he or she starts earning for livelihood.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.\tIt is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is not a
\nphysically crippled son of the deceased pensioner.  It is also not the case of
\nthe respondents that the petitioner is earning for his livelihood.  In the
\nabsence of such contention in the counter affidavit, the second respondent
\ncannot deny the payment of family pension to the petitioner from 18.2.2001 as
\nrecommended by the 4th respondent through his proceedings dated 29.8.2003.  The
\nsecond respondent is bound by law to sanction the family pension as per rule
\n49(6) extracted above and the second respondent is not justified in postponing
\npayment on the plea that clarification\/concurrence of the Tamil Nadu government
\nis awaited.  The said pension rule nowhere contemplates getting concurrence of
\nthe Government.  Even  if the Government issues clarification, the same will not
\nhave any retrospective effect.  So far no clarification is also issued.  Hence,
\nthe second respondent is not justified in not sanctioning family pension as
\nrecommended by the 4th respondent as early as on 29.8.2003 to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.\tA similar issue arose before the Honourable Supreme Court in the
\ndecision reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 145 (Bhagwanti Mamtani v. Union of India
\nand others<\/a>) wherein a mentally disabled daughter applied for family pension
\nafter six years of her father’s death.  The Honourable Supreme Court held that
\nthe delay in making the claim, is not fatal.  However, the family pension was
\ndirected to be paid from the month and year in which the person approached the
\nAdministrative Tribunal.  In the said decision, the delay aspect was considered
\nby the Honourable Supreme Court in para 4 and a direction was issued to sanction
\nfamily pension from the date of filing of the original application before the
\nTribunal and if it was not paid within six months 12% interest was also ordered
\nto be paid.  Relevant paras 4 and 5 are extracted here under,
\n\t“4.\tWe have heard learned counsel for the parties.  Mr.N.N.Goswami,
\nlearned counsel appearing for the Union of India has contended that the
\nappellant’s father died in 1976 whereas the appellant approached the Government
\nof India for the grant of pension in the year 1982.  According to him the claim
\nof the appellant being belated, she is not entitled to any relief by this Court.
\nWe do not agree with the learned counsel.  The benefit of the provisions of the
\nrule to the appellant who is mentally disabled cannot be denied, in the facts
\nand circumstances of this case, on the ground of delay in approaching the
\nGovernment of India.  Mr.Goswami further stated that the rule cannot be made
\noperative retrospectively.  According to him the rule came into force with
\neffect from September 30, 1974, whereas the appellant’s father had retired from
\nservice in the year 1969.  We see no force in the contention.  The appellant’s
\nfather was drawing pension till he died in the year 1976.  The appellant only
\nbecame entitled to the disability pension under the above-quoted rule after the
\ndeath of her father.  We therefore hold that the appellant is entitled to the
\nfamily pension in terms of proviso to Rule 54(6) of the Central Civil Services
\n(Pension) Rules, 1972.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.\tWe are, however, of the view that the interest of justice would be
\nmet if we direct the Government of India to grant family pension to the
\nappellant from May 1986 when she approached the Central Administrative Tribunal,
\nNew Delhi.  Under the circumstances, we direct the Government of India to grant
\nfamily pension to the appellant with effect from May 1, 1986.  The arrears of
\npension shall be paid to the appellant within six months from today.  In case
\nthe arrears are not paid within the abovesaid period, the appellant shall be
\nentitled to earn interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the expiry of the
\nperiod of six months.  They payment of arrears and the future pension shall be
\nmade by way of payee’s account cheque in the name of the appellant.  The arrears
\nshall be spread over the period from May 1986 onwards for the purposes of income
\ntax.  …”\n<\/p>\n
\t13.\tIn view of the above referred judgment of the Honourable Supreme
\nCourt and based on my above finding, a writ of mandamus is issued directing the
\nsecond respondent to sanction family pension to the petitioner from 18.2.2001 as
\nrecommended by the 4th respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.1545\/B1\/03 dated
\n29.8.2003 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
\norder.  The second respondent is directed to sanction family pension as ordered
\nabove and pay the arrears of family pension to the petitioner on or before
\n31.1.2007.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe writ petition is allowed with the above directions.  No costs.
\nConnected miscelleneous petition is closed.\n<\/p>\n
vr<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThe Director of Pensions, Government of Tamil Nadu,
\n\tMadras – 2.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlements),
\n\tOffice of the Accountant General,
\n\t(Accounts and Entitlements), Chennai – 18.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe District Educational Officer,
\n\tDepartment of Elementary Education,
\n\tThallakulam, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe Assistant Elementary Education Officer,
\n\tThirupparankundram @ Thirunagar, Madurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court K. Jegalingam vs The Director Of Pensions on 15 December, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 15\/12\/2006 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.P(MD)No.10144 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 K. Jegalingam … Petitioner Vs. 1. The Director of Pensions, Government of Tamil Nadu, Madras – 2. 2. The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-228744","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK. Jegalingam vs The Director Of Pensions on 15 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jegalingam-vs-the-director-of-pensions-on-15-december-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. Jegalingam vs The Director Of Pensions on 15 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jegalingam-vs-the-director-of-pensions-on-15-december-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-31T18:19:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-jegalingam-vs-the-director-of-pensions-on-15-december-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-jegalingam-vs-the-director-of-pensions-on-15-december-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Jegalingam vs The Director Of Pensions on 15 December, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-31T18:19:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-jegalingam-vs-the-director-of-pensions-on-15-december-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2269,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-jegalingam-vs-the-director-of-pensions-on-15-december-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-jegalingam-vs-the-director-of-pensions-on-15-december-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-jegalingam-vs-the-director-of-pensions-on-15-december-2006\",\"name\":\"K. Jegalingam vs The Director Of Pensions on 15 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-31T18:19:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-jegalingam-vs-the-director-of-pensions-on-15-december-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-jegalingam-vs-the-director-of-pensions-on-15-december-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-jegalingam-vs-the-director-of-pensions-on-15-december-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Jegalingam vs The Director Of Pensions on 15 December, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K. Jegalingam vs The Director Of Pensions on 15 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jegalingam-vs-the-director-of-pensions-on-15-december-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Jegalingam vs The Director Of Pensions on 15 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jegalingam-vs-the-director-of-pensions-on-15-december-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-31T18:19:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jegalingam-vs-the-director-of-pensions-on-15-december-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jegalingam-vs-the-director-of-pensions-on-15-december-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Jegalingam vs The Director Of Pensions on 15 December, 2006","datePublished":"2006-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-31T18:19:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jegalingam-vs-the-director-of-pensions-on-15-december-2006"},"wordCount":2269,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jegalingam-vs-the-director-of-pensions-on-15-december-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jegalingam-vs-the-director-of-pensions-on-15-december-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jegalingam-vs-the-director-of-pensions-on-15-december-2006","name":"K. Jegalingam vs The Director Of Pensions on 15 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-31T18:19:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jegalingam-vs-the-director-of-pensions-on-15-december-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jegalingam-vs-the-director-of-pensions-on-15-december-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jegalingam-vs-the-director-of-pensions-on-15-december-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Jegalingam vs The Director Of Pensions on 15 December, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228744","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=228744"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228744\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228744"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228744"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228744"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}