Madras High Court
The Principal Accountant General vs Smt.Suriyakala on 1 February, 2022
W.A.No.2016/2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.A.(MD)No.2016 of 2021
and C.M.P.(MD)No.9333 of 2021
The Principal Accountant General
(Accounts and Entitlements),
No.361, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 018. .. Appellant/Respondent 1
Vs.
1. Smt.Suriyakala .. Respondent 1/Petitioner
2. Minor Puja Sivani,
D/o.Late Muneeswaran,
Rep. through her mother and next friend,
Mrs.Neelavathi (Inspector of Police),
D.No.15-2-10A, Nehruji Street,
P.C.Patti (Palanichettipatti),
Theni District. @ .. Respondents 2/Respondent 2
@ R2 is impleaded as per order
dated 14.07.2021 in WMP(MD)
No.8946/2021
***
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 14.07.2021 in W.P.(MD)No.6999 of 2019.
***
For Appellants : Mr.P.Gunasekar
For Respondents : Mr.Sarvangen Prabhu for R1
Mr.Saravanakumar for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1/10
W.A.No.2016/2021
JUDGEMENT
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
The Principal Accountant of the State laid challenge to the order of
the writ Court dated 14.07.2021 made in W.P.(MD)No.6999 of 2019.
2. The appellant is the first respondent in the writ petition and
the writ petitioner is the first respondent herein. The husband of the writ
petitioner one Muneeswaran was an Assistant in the office of the
Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, who said to be married one
Neelaveni for the second time, when the first marriage was alive and the
second respondent herein, so also before the writ Court was born out of
the said wedlock. He committed suicide on 06.11.2014. The dispute that
arose between the two families with respect to settlement of his terminal
benefits was settled before the Lok Adalat conducted by the District Legal
Services Authority, Dindigul, in Lok Adalat Case Nos.318/2017 and 319
of 2017 in O.S.Nos.791 of 2014 and 66 of 2015 respectively on
09.09.2017, in and by which, the second wife agreed to relinquish the
terminal benefits of the deceased. Based on the same, the request made
for family pension was made by the writ petitioner, which was forwarded
to the appellant. However, the first respondent passed the family pension
order dated 18.12.2018 making the following remarks :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2/10
W.A.No.2016/2021
"As per TNPR, if a Government Servant is survived by two
wives, 50% family pension is payable to first wife and 50% to
children through second wife. In the instant case, Smt.Suryakala is
eligible for 50% family pension and 50% family pension is payable to
Ms.Puja Sivani daughter through second wife. The Court order to
grant 100% FP to first wife is not in consonance with TNPR and
hence, relaxation order may be obtained from Government. In order
to avoid hardship, 50% FP is authorised to Smt.Suryakala and
remaining 50% will be authorised to Ms.Puja Sivani on receipt of
relaxation order along with proposals."
The writ petitioner questioned the said order in W.P.(MD)No.6999 of
2019 and sought a direction to disburse the family pension as per the
award dated 09.09.2017 and the writ petition allowed vide order dated
14.07.2021, which is impugned before this Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed before us.
4. The facts are not in dispute. The first respondent/writ
petitioner is the first wife of the deceased Government servant and the
mother of the second respondent is the second wife. Pursuant to the
compromise arrived at between them before the Lok Adalat, the mother
of the second respondent, on behalf of the second respondent,
relinquished the right to receive 50% of the pension amount. The
Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, also forwarded the proposal
based on such agreement. However, the appellant refused to accept the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3/10
W.A.No.2016/2021
agreement arrived at between the parties and asked for a relaxation
order to be obtained from the Government and in order to avoid
hardship, authorised 50% of pension to the petitioner and stated that the
remaining 50% will be authorised to the second respondent on receipt of
relaxation order along with proposals.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment
of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 02.04.2008 in W.P.No.11228
of 2004 (R.Dhanalakshmi V. The Secretary to Government, Labour and
Employment Department, Chennai-9), which was upheld by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1211 of 2018 vide order 03.12.2019,
to contend that even the illegitimate children are entitled for a share in
the property of the deceased Government servant in terms of the Tamil
Nadul Pension Rules, 1978 (in short, "the Rules"). In the said judgment,
the private arrangement between the parties, which was the basis for the
decree in the suit, cannot be binding the State, when they were given up
before the Munsif Court. In the said case, the petitioner, who claims to
be the second wife, sought for the terminal benefits of the deceased
Government servant based on the private agreement. On the other hand,
in the case on hand, the pension benefits are relinquished by the mother
of the second respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4/10
W.A.No.2016/2021
6. It is pertinent to state that the learned Single Judge in the
impugned order recorded the presence of the mother of the second
respondent before the Court virtually and also filing of the affidavit and
held as follows :
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the second wife is working as a Inspector of Police
and she has independent income. She has given no objection for
being paid full family pension to the petitioner. In the meantime,
this Court by order, dated 02.07.2021, directed the petitioner to
implead the daughter of the second wife, namely, Puja Sivani as a
second respondent in the present writ petition. The petitioner filed
W.M.P(MD)No.8746 of 2021 to implead Puja Sivani, the daughter
of the second wife Neelaveni. The second wife represented for her
minor daughter filed an affidavit. In the affidavit, she has stated
that she is working as Inspector of Police and she has sufficient
means to support and bring up her daughter Puja Sivani. She also
stated that the petitioner is unemployed with two minor children
and the said Neelaveni, who is the second wife of the deceased,
has no objection to pay the full family pension to the petitioner. As
per the direction of this Court, the second wife Neelaveni appeared
before this Court today (14.07.2021) through Video Conferencing.
Her counsel identified the said Neelaveni as a mother of the
second respondent Puja Sivani. The mother of the Puja Sivani
reiterated the averments made in the affidavit and confirmed that
she has no objection for receiving the full family pension by the
petitioner.
8. Considering the above facts, especially, 50% of the
terminal benefits, paid to the minor daughter through second wife
Neelaveni, economical and financial position of the petitioner, no
objection given by the second respondent minor daughter through
her mother, it will be in the interest of justice, this Court directs
the first respondent to authorise and pay full family pension to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5/10
W.A.No.2016/2021
petitioner and also arrears of family pension from the date of
death of the employee. In view of the above, the impugned order
of the first respondent, dated 18.12.2018 is quashed insofar as not
authorising the full family pension to the petitioner is concerned."
7. From the above it is clear that with eyes wide open knowing
well the consequences, the mother of the second respondent relinquished
the rights of the minor daughter qua pension benefits. It is to be stated
that the Rules is silent about relinquishment of rights by the parties.
8. At this juncture, it is apt to rely upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Violet Issaac and Others Vs. Union of
India and Others reported in (1991) 1 SCC 725, wherein, it has been
held as follows:
"The Family Pension Scheme under the Rules is
designed to provide relief to the widow and children by way
of compensation for the untimely death of the deceased
employee. The Rules do not provide for any nomination with
regard to family pension, instead the Rules designate the
persons who are entitled to receive the family pension. Thus,
no other person except those designated under the Rules are
entitled to receive family pension. The employee has no title
nor any control over the family pension as he is not required
to make any contribution to it. The family pension scheme is
in the nature of a welfare scheme. Therefore, it does not
form part of his estate enabling him to dispose of the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 6/10
W.A.No.2016/2021
by testamentary disposition. Accordingly, in the present case
the widow of the deceased Railway employee is entitled to
receive the family pension, notwithstanding the will alleged to
have been executed by the deceased."
9. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the family
pension scheme is designed to provide relief to the widow and children
by way of compensation for the untimely death of the deceased
employee and it does not form part of the estate of the deceased
Government servant and thus, he cannot dispose the same by
testamentary disposition and only the designated persons of the family
can receive the same. However, when the beneficiary under the scheme
is ready to forgo the rights, the same could be accepted for the benefit of
the remaining beneficiaries. Of-course, it is for the authorities to ensure
the genuineness of the claim and take all possible steps to avoid
impersonation, etc.,. When the concerned authorities act bona fidely
after taking all precautions to ensure the right of the claimants and
forward the proposal with relinquishment to the Accountant General,
having accepted the genuineness of the claim, there should be no bar to
grant terminal benefits to the such eligible members of the deceased
family in accordance with the Rules. The hyper-technicalities raised under
the alleged letter of the Government issued way back on 25.06.1993
ought not to be allowed to stall or delay the process of extending the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 7/10
W.A.No.2016/2021
pensionary benefits and rightly, the concerned Department of the State
has not raised their little finger to deny the benefits to the writ petitioner
and it is only the office of the Accountant General is before this Court.
10. As indicated above, the learned Single Judge, after
considering the factual position, economical and financial position of the
writ petitioner and also no objection given on behalf of the second
respondent, rightly came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner is
entitled to receive full 100% family pension and set aside the portion of
the impugned order denying the said benefit. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the
said findings.
11. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed
as devoid of merits affirming the order of the learned Single Judge. The
appellant is directed to comply with the directions issued by the learned
Single Judge within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(P.S.N., J.) (P.V., J.)
01.02.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 8/10
W.A.No.2016/2021
gg
To
The Principal Accountant General
(Accounts and Entitlements),
No.361, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 9/10
W.A.No.2016/2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
gg
W.A.(MD)No.2016 of 2021
01.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 10/10
