Madras High Court
K.Yuvarani vs The Accountant General(A&E) on 9 August, 2024
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P.(MD)No.17623 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.08.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.17623 of 2022
and
W.M.P(MD)No.12841 of 2022
K.Yuvarani ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Accountant General(A&E),
O/o.the principal of Accountant General(A&E),
No.61, Anna Salai, Thenampet,
Chennai – 600 018.
2.The Additional Treasury Officer,
O/o.the District Treasury Officer, Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Sivagangai – 630 562. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the
proceedings of the Impugned order in Na.Ka.No.8488/G2/2021 dated
29.12.2021 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and further
directing the Respondents to disburse the family pension and funeral benefits to
the Petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For Respondents : Mr.P.Gunasekaran for R1
Mr.S.Shaji Bino
Special Government Pleader for R2 & R3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.(MD)No.17623 of 2022
ORDER
The instant writ petition has been filed by the second wife of the
deceased Government Servant, challenging the order passed by the second
respondent herein, wherein the request of the petitioner for grant of family
pension has been rejected on the ground that the pension payment order of the
deceased Government Servant indicates that it is a single pension payment
order.
2.According to the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, her
husband had joined the respondent department on 06.10.1982 and he had retired
on 30.11.2005.
3.It is admitted in the affidavit that the said Kalimuthu had married one
Prema Sundari and due to matrimonial dispute, they got separated through
customary mode of divorce on 12.07.1982. The said Prema Sundari is said to
have re-married one S.Ramachandran on 12.05.1986.
4.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would content that the
deceased Kalimuthu had married her on 16.06.1983, as per the Hindu Customs
and he passed away on 22.03.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.According to the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the
first wife having got re-married, the second marriage is valid and therefore, she
is entitled to receive pension. He would further content that just because the
deceased Government Servant has not nominated anyone and it is reflected in
the pension payment order that it is a single pension payment, the legal rights of
the writ petitioner cannot be taken away.
6.Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would
content that the petitioner has to establish that such a custom was prevailing in
the community and in the locality, permitting the petitioner's husband to enter
into customary divorce. Unless such a customary divorce is established, the
petitioner's marriage with the deceased Government Servant cannot be
considered to be legally valid. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the writ
petition.
7.I have considered the submission made on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.The perusal of the impugned order indicates that sole reason on which
the request for family pension has been rejected is that no nominee is reflected
in the pension payment order. This Court in Judgment of J.Kanniga
Parameswari Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Treasury
and Accounts Office, Panakal Park, Chennai and others reported in 2007 (3)
CTC 630 has held that merely because the nominees have not been reflected in
the pension payment order that it would not take away the rights of the legally
wedded wife by the deceased Government servant to seek family pension.
9.Therefore, the order impugned in the writ petition is in violation of the
orders passed by this Court and the same is hereby set aside and the same is
remitted back to the third respondent herein.
10.The third respondent is directed to consider the request of the
petitioner afresh and and pass orders on merits in accordance with law within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11.The writ petitioner is at liberty to place all the records to prove the
legality of their marriage before the third respondent herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12.With the above said observations, this writ petition stands allowed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.08.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
RJR
To
1.The Accountant General(A&E),
O/o.the principal of Accountant General(A&E),
No.61, Anna Salai, Thenampet,
Chennai – 600 018.
2.The Additional Treasury Officer,
O/o.the District Treasury Officer, Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Sivagangai – 630 562.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
RJR
and
09.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
