Madras High Court
P.Dhanalakshmi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 31 August, 2021
W.A.No.1456 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 31.08.2021
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana
and
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
W.A. No.1456 of 2021
P.Dhanalakshmi ... Appellant
vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu ,
rep. by its Secretary,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St.George Town,
Chepauk, Chennai.
2. The Accountant General (A& E)
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. ...Respondents
Prayer:-
Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 06.09.2019 passed in W.P.No.26626 of 2019.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Prabhakaran
For Respondent-1 : Mr.C.Jayaprakash
Government Advocate
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page No.1
W.A.No.1456 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Krishnan Ramasamy, J.,)
This Appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned
Single Judge, in W.P.No.26626 of 2019, dated 06.09.2019.
2. The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant herein. The
case of the appellant is that, while her husband was serving as a Health
Inspector (PHC) Achankuttapatti, a criminal case was foisted against him
for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, and 302 read with Section
149 IPC, and in the said criminal case, the appellant's husband was
convicted for an offence under Section 323 IPC, and was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved
against which, the appellant's husband preferred an Appeal in Crl.A.No.575
of 1996 and this Court, vide a judgment, dated 27.09.2002, disposed of the
Appeal by modifying the punishment of imprisonment to that of a fine
Rs.1000/-, and the said fine amount was also paid. Subsequently, in view
of the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.575 of 1996, dated 27.09.2002, the
appellant's husband suspension period from 01.09.1995 to 14.12.2005 was
regularized, and, in view of the commencement of disciplinary proceedings,
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page No.2
W.A.No.1456 of 2021
he was imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement, by order,
dated 14.02.2005. Thereafter, though the appellant's husband was paid
with provisional pension for the suspension period, he was not paid the
pension w.e.f. 15.12.2005. Seeking the same, the appellant's husband made
several representations to the respondents. In the meantime, the appellant's
husband passed away on 18.01.2019. After the death of her husband, the
appellant made a representation dated 16.04.2019, to the respondents for
sanction of arrears of pension payable to her husband. The said
representation, dated 16.04.2019 made by the appellant was not considered
by the respondents, and hence, she filed the Writ Petition for issuance of a
mandamus on the respondents to consider her representation, dated
16.04.2019, for sanction and disbursement of arrears of pension payable to
her deceased husband, Mr.K.Pitchupatthan. The learned Single Judge, after
hearing both the parties, dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground of delay
and laches. The same is under challenge in this Appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as
the learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and perused the
materials available on record.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page No.3
W.A.No.1456 of 2021
4. A perusal of the order impugned herein would clearly show that
the Writ Court has failed to take into consideration of the vital aspect that
the representation made by the appellant is not a fresh representation but
the one made in pursuance of the representations made by her husband.
4.1. It is a trite law that a wife is entitled to receive arrears of
pension of her husband even after his death, and in this case, the appellant's
husband entitlement to receive regular pension is not in dispute. It is no
doubt true that the appellant's husband was departmentally proceeded with,
pursuant to a criminal case foisted against him, and he was placed under
suspension from 01.09.1995 to 14.12.2005.
4.2 Later on, subsequent to the judgment passed in criminal
proceedings in Crl.A.No.575 of 1996, dated 27.09.2002, the appellant's
husband's suspension period from 01.09.1995 to 14.12.2005 was
regularized, and he was imposed with the punishment of compulsory
retirement, by the Department, by order, dated 14.02.2005. However,
subsequent to the receipt of the provisional pension for the suspension
period from 01.09.1995 to 14.12.2005, the appellant's husband was not
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page No.4
W.A.No.1456 of 2021
paid the regular pension. Unfortunately, the appellant's husband passed
away on 18.01.2019. Since the representations made by the appellant's
husband were not considered by the respondents, the appellant, being his
class-I legal heir, who is legally entitled to receive pension, made a
representation dated 16.04.2019, for sanction of arrears of pension, that are
payable to her deceased husband. Since the representation made by the
appellant evoked no response, she filed the Writ Petition seeking a direction
from the respondents to disburse the arrears of pension payable to her
deceased husband. That apart, the appellant is also entitled for the family
pension after the death of her husband.
4.3 Thus, it is clear that the cause of action is continuous in nature,
and therefore, the representation made by the appellant cannot be deemed to
be a fresh one, whereas, the Writ Court wrongly came to the conclusion that
the representation made by the appellant suffers from the delay and laches,
as if, the appellant is making fresh representation, but the fact remains that
the earlier representations made by the appellant's deceased husband were
not considered by the respondents, which constrained the appellant to make
representation. As long as the cause of action exists, the appellant's right to
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page No.5
W.A.No.1456 of 2021
receive the family pension and arrears of her deceased husband cannot be
denied.
4.4 Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Writ Court
failed to consider the aforesaid vital aspect and dismissed the Writ Petition
on the ground of delay and laches, which is unsustainable. Thus, we are not
inclined to concur with the order passed by the Writ Court.
5. In the upshot, the Writ Appeal is allowed, the impugned order is
set aside. Consequently, the respondents herein are directed to consider and
dispose of the appellant's representation, dated 16.04.2019, within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and
release all the arrears of pension and other benefits, to the appellant, to
which, the appellant's husband is legally entitled for, within three months
thereafter. No costs.
sd [P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
31.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Note to Office:-
Registry is directed to post the matter
for reporting compliance on 6th December, 2021.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page No.6
W.A.No.1456 of 2021
To
1. State of Tamil Nadu ,
rep. by its Secretary,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St.George Town,
Chepauk, Chennai.
2. The Accountant General (A& E)
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page No.7
W.A.No.1456 of 2021
Pushpa Sathyanarayana,J.,
&
Krishnan Ramasamy,J.,
sd
W.A. No.1456 of 2021
31.08.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page No.8
