Madras High Court
S.Perachi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 July, 2023
W.P.No.12502 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.07.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
Writ Petition No.12502 of 2020
S.Perachi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Commissioner,
Revenue Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 5.
3.The District Collector,
Thirunelveli,
Thirunelveli District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Palayankottai,
Thirunelveli District.
5.The Accountant General (A&E),
Teynampet,
Chennai – 18. … Respondents
Page No.1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12502 of 2020
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the
claims of the petitioner for granting regular family pension as per the rule 49
of the Pension Rules from the date of death of the petitioner's husband w.e.f.
08.06.2005 and grant full family pension with all benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sanjayan
For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai,
Government Advocate
For Respondent 5 : M/s.T.S.Selvarani
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to
the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioner for granting regular
family pension as per the rule 49 of the Pension Rules from the date of death
of the petitioner's husband w.e.f. 08.06.2005 and grant full family pension
with all benefits.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s husband namely
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12502 of 2020
V.Subramanian was initially selected and appointed as Village Assistant in
the year 1981 on consolidated pay/salary and thereafter, he was brought into
regular establishment on 01.06.1995. Subsequently, he was given time scale
of pay in the post of Village Assistant from 01.06.1995 onwards. While
serving in the said post, he died on 07.06.2005, leaving behind his
wife/petitioner and children as legal heirs. This being so, after his demise,
the respondents have not granted the family pension at the rate of basic pay
along with dearness allowance. However, the petitioner was given only
Rs.150/- as exgratia instead of family pension. When the petitioner
approached the authority and enquired about the non-sanctioning of family
pension at the rate of basic pay of her demised husband, the respondents
orally stated that since, her husband has not completed ten years of qualifying
service, the family pension at the rate of basic pay of her demised husband
could not be paid.
2.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents did not
count her husband’s past service along with regular service for granting
family pension, however, in the case of one Mrs.Anjalam, wife of late Raju
(Worked as Village Assistant), the respondents have granted family pension.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12502 of 2020
The petitioner’s husband has completed ten years of regular service, even
then, the respondents have not granted family pension to the deceased family
at the rate of basic pay of the deceased. Hence, she has submitted a
representation dated 25.03.2019 before the respondents, requesting to grant
full family pension and other death benefits to her at the rate of basic pay of
her deceased husband. Since, the representation has been made, no action
was taken by the respondents. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has
come forward with the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Pension
Rules, the petitioner is entitled to get family pension at the rate of 50% of
basic pay of deceased husband. The reading of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules,
1978 shows that the requirement of 10 years of service is only for granting
pension, in so far as the employee, who retired on attaining the age of
superannuation and in so far as granting of family pension to the deceased
family, the completion of more than one year service is enough. In this case,
the petitioner’s husband has completed 10 years of regular service, even then,
the deceased family was not granted family pension.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12502 of 2020
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that without
following the Pension Rules, 1978 and without granting regular family
pension to the petitioner at the rate of basic pay of the deceased, the
respondents have granted only Rs.150/- as ex-gratia. Further, the petitioner
has also made several representations to the respondents, but the same was
not considered. Due to sudden demise of petitioner’s husband, now the
deceased family is in starving condition without any financial assistant like
family pension. Hence, he prayed this Court to direct the respondents to
grant family pension as per Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules,1938
from the date of death of the petitioner’s husband with effect from
07.06.2005 and grant full family pension with all benefits.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgments
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court and the same is reads as
follows:
(i) Union of India and another Vs. Surender Singh Parmar,
reported in (2015) 3 SCC 404.
(ii) State Bank of Patiala Vs. Pritam Singh Bedi & Others,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12502 of 2020
reported in 2014 (7) Supreme 108.
(iii) Venkatramani Vs. Indian Bank rep. by its Chairperson &
M.D., Chennai and another, reported in 2005-III-LLJ.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that
the petitioner’s husband has worked as part time worker from the period
10.01.1982 to 31.05.1995 and on the said date, he was relieved from part
time job and thereafter, from 01.06.1995, the petitioner’s husband was
appointed as a permanent Village Assistant and his service was regularized.
Hence, the period of part time service could not be counted from basic pay
for family pension and other benefits. Moreover, the petitioner is entitled for
family pension alone, only from the date of the regularization of the
petitioner’s husband i.e., from 01.06.1995 and not other benefits.
7. The Accountant General/fifth respondent has filed a counter
affidavit dated 31.12.2020. According to the counter, the petitioner is
eligible for pensionary benefits as per Tamil Nadu Village Assistant Special
Pension Rule vide G.O. (3D) 9 Revenue (Ser 7(1) Department dated
28.02.2006. The salient feature of the G.O. are enumerated below:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12502 of 2020
(i) The Village Assistants in the Revenue Department were brought
under Regular establishment with effect from 01.06.1995. They shall be paid
salary in the non standard scale of Rs.1800-20-2240. The Government
framed Rule for payment of pension, family pension and DCRG to those
Village Assistants.
(ii) They were deemed to have come into force on 01.06.1995 and shall
be apply to the full time Village Assistants employed in the Revenue
Department. A Village Assistant was eligible for pension if he had rendered
a qualifying service of 10 years or more and been discharged or retired as per
Rules.
(iii) The family of a Village Assistant shall be paid Special Family
Pension of lumpsum of Rs.150/- per month without D.A. in the event of
death of Village Assistant within 10 years of service.
8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12502 of 2020
9. On perusal of the records, it can be seen that the petitioner's
husband was regularized on 01.06.1995 and his qualifying service for
pension is 10 years, but he has net qualifying service of only 9 years 7
months and 18 days.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and
another Vs. Surender Singh Parmar, reported in (2015) 3 SCC 404, it was
held that minimum qualifying period for pensionable service in India Navy is
15 years, but the respondent after completing 13 years 10 months and 13 days
of service sought voluntary retirement. It is pertinent to note that in Indian
Navy, 15 years is qualifying period for pension and it was held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the respondent after completing 13 years
10 months and 13 days of service, sought voluntary retirement and the same
was rounded of to 14 years and he is eligible for pension. The competent
authority fails to exercise its power for condoning shortfall in qualifying
service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12502 of 2020
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on another
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala Vs.
Pritam Singh Bedi & Others, reported in 2017 (7) Supreme 108, in which it
was held that the respondents have completed more than 19 years and 6
months are entitled to pension in terms of Regulation 14 and the length of
service being more than 19 years and 6 months should be treated as 20 years
in terms of Regulation 18 and entitled to benefits in terms of Regulation 29.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the
judgment passed by the Division Bench judgment of this Court, in the case of
Venkatramani N. Vs. Indian Bank rep. by its Chairperson & M.D.,
Chennai and Another, reported in 2005-III-LLJ, in which it was held that
employee having served for 14 years, 9 months and 7 days, opting to go on
voluntary retirement under Bank's Voluntary retirement scheme of 2000 and
who denied pension on the ground of not putting minimum service of 15
years should be construed as one full year and thereby his service with the
respondent could be held to be for a period of 15 years and also further held
that the arrears of pension payable to the pensioner were liable to be settled
with interest of 10% per annum.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12502 of 2020
13. In the present case on hand, the petitioner's husband had a net
qualifying service of 9 years 7 months and 18 days, after deducting the non-
qualifying service of 4 months and 12 days. By applying the ration laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Division Bench of this
Court, the shortage of 4 months and 12 days can be rounded of to 10 years
and treated as 10 years of qualifying service for grant of family pension to the
petitioner.
14. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner's husband
has qualifying service of 10 years and the petitioner is entitled for all family
pensionary benefits and the respondents are directed to grant regular pension
as per Rule 49 of the Pension Rules, 1938 from the date of death of the
petitioner's husband with effect from 08.06.2005 and grant full family
pension with all benefits, within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of the order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12502 of 2020
15. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.
28.07.2023
vm
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
To:
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12502 of 2020
2.The Commissioner,
Revenue Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 5.
3.The District Collector,
Thirunelveli,
Thirunelveli District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Palayankottai,
Thirunelveli District.
5.The Accountant General (A&E),
Teynampet,
Chennai – 18.
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD,J.
vm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12502 of 2020
W.P.No.12502 of 2020
28.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
