Madras High Court
Rajaselvi vs The Principal Accountant General on 12 August, 2024
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P.(MD) No.19244 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD) No.19244 of 2022
Rajaselvi ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Principal Accountant General,
(A and E) Tamilnadu,
No.361, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 018.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli - 627 001.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District - 627 414.
4.The Secretary,
PLWA Higher Secondary School,
Vikramasingapuram,
Tirunelveli District - 627 425 ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19244 of 2022
relating to the impugned order, dated 26.04.2022, in Oo.Moo.No.
932/Aa2/2022 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same as illegal
and further direct the 3rd respondent to forward the petitioner's proposal for
family pension to the 1st respondent and direct the 1st Respondent to
disburse the entitled family pension to the petitioner with interest.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Loganathan
For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.J.Ashok,
Addl. Govt. Pleader.
ORDER
The instant Writ Petition has been filed by a widowed daughter,
challenging the order passed by the third respondent herein, rejecting the
request of the writ petitioner, seeking family pension.
2. The petitioner's father was working as a Drawing Master in a
private aided school and he attained superannuation on 30.04.1993. The
petitioner's father and mother passed away on 21.12.2018, leaving behind
their daughters, namely, (1) Rajaselvi (petitioner), (2) Ramapushkala, (3)
Rajeswari and (4) Ramasubha.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The petitioner lost her husband on 15.02.2020. The petitioner
is also a physically challenged person. Being a disabled widowed daughter,
she approached the respondent authorities for recommending her name for
receipt of family pension, based on G.O.Ms.No.65, Finance (Pension)
Department, dated 10.03.2003. On 26.04.2022, the third respondent has
passed the impugned order, rejecting the request of the petitioner on the
ground that during the lifetime of her father and mother, she was not
dependent upon them. In fact, she had lost her husband two years after the
death of her parents. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has
been filed.
4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner, as per G.O.Ms.No.325, Finance (Pension) Department, dated
28.11.2011, the petitioner is eligible for receipt of family pension after the
death of her mother, in view of the fact that she is not only disabled but also a
widowed daughter.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing
for the respondents pointed out that G.O.Ms.No.325, Finance (Pension)
Department, 28.11.2011, has been superseded by G.O.Ms.No.337, Finance
(Pay Cell) Department, dated 14.11.2017, and, as per the said Government
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order, unless the person, claiming family pension, was dependent upon the
deceased family pensioner while the family pensioner was alive, the question
of extending the benefit of family pension to that particular person would not
arise. The learned Additional Government Pleader also relied upon a judgment
of a single judge of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.9290 of 2024, dated 16.04.2024,
in support of his case.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side
and also perused the material available on record.
7. The petitioner's father had retired from service on 30.04.1993
and both of her parents died on 21.12.2018. The petitioner's husband also
passed away on 15.02.2020. The petitioner is a physically challenged person.
These facts are not in dispute.
8. When the parents of the petitioner had passed away, the
G.O.Ms.No.337, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 14.11.2017, was in
force. A perusal of the said G.O. reveals that unmarried/widowed/divorced
daughters, even after attaining the age of 25 years, would be eligible to receive
family pension, provided they were wholly dependent upon the Government
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
servant / Pensioner ,when he/she was alive. Therefore, it is clear that unless
a person, claiming family pension, was dependent upon the pensioner/family
pensioner during his or her lifetime, the said person would not be entitled to
seek family pension. In the present case, the petitioner was not dependent
upon her father or mother during their lifetime. She lost her husband two
years after the date of death of her parents.
9. Based upon the physical disability or marital status of the
petitioner, if family pension is extended to the petitioner, it will result in
reviving of the stopped pensions after so many years in favour of daughters,
who lost their husbands at a later point of time. Therefore, such an
interpretation is not legally sustainable.
10. In view of the above deliberations, there is no merit in the
present Writ Petition. Writ Petition stands dismissed accordingly. No costs.
12.08.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
dixit
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Principal Accountant General,
(A and E) Tamilnadu,
No.361, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 018.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli - 627 001.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District - 627 414.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
dixit
12.08.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
