Madras High Court
State Of Tamilnadu vs I.Samuel Issac Newton on 5 January, 2024
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar, R.Vijayakumar
W.A.(MD) No.1619 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A.(MD) No.1619 of 2018
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.11738 of 2018
1.State of Tamilnadu
rep.by its Secretary
Department of School Education
Fort St.George, Chennai
2.The District Educational Officer
Office of District Educational Office
Virudhunagar District ... Appellants
-vs-
1.I.Samuel Issac Newton
2.The Accountant General (A&E)
Office of Accountant General (A&E)
Chennai-18
3.The Correspondent
S.C.M.S.Girls Higher Secondary School
Satchiyapuram
Sivakasi West, Virudhunagar District ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1619 of 2018
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 12.12.2017, passed in W.P.(MD) No.2382 of 2010, on the file of
this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.P.V.Vetrivel
for Mr.S.Rajasekar for R1
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.]
This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
Judge, dated 12.12.2017, passed in W.P.(MD) No.2382 of 2010.
2. According to the first respondent / writ petitioner, his wife
Vanitha was joined as P.G.Assistant (Commerce Teacher) in the third
respondent's School on 21.08.1996, her appointment was approved by the
second appellant on 19.05.1997 and salary was paid to her, from the date of
approval. While she was working as P.G.Assistant in the third respondent's
School, she died on 10.01.1998. After her death, the first respondent /
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
husband of Vanitha approached the authority concerned for getting the
benefit of family pension. Since the request made by the first respondent was
rejected, he filed the writ petition before this Court and the learned Single
Judge, by order dated 12.12.2017, found that the first respondent is entitled
to receive the family pension of his deceased wife and accordingly, allowed the
writ petition. Challenging the same, the Department has preferred this writ
appeal.
3. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
appellants submitted that the first respondent's wife joined as P.G.Assistant in
the third respondent's School on 21.08.1996. Her appointment was approved
by the second appellant on 19.05.1997. Thereafter, within a period of one
year, she died on 10.01.1998. The first respondent's wife had not produced
any medical / fitness certificate to the authority concerned during her
appointment. Therefore, the first respondent is not entitled for the benefit of
family pension.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted
that the authority concerned should have insisted upon the first respondent's
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
wife to produce the medical / fitness certificate at the relevant point of time.
Without doing so, now, the appellants cannot take a contrary stand that the
first respondent is not entitled to the relief on account of non-production of
fitness certificate.
5. Learned counsel for the first respondent drew the attention of
this Court to G.O.Ms.No.967, Finance (Pension) Department, dated
29.08.1989, and submitted that the family of the deceased Government
servant is entitled for family pension even before completion of one year
continuous service provided the deceased Government servant concerned
immediately prior to his appointment to the service for post was examined by
the appropriate Medical authority and declared fit by that authority for
Government service.
6. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully
perused the materials available on record.
7. The short point involved in this writ appeal is whether the
family of the deceased Government servant is not entitled for family pension
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
on account of non-production of medical / fitness certificate to the authority
concerned at the time of appointment.
8. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer the Government
Order in G.O.Ms.No.967, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 29.08.1989.
The relevant portion of the said Government Order is extracted hereunder:
“2.The question of sanction of family pension to
the family of Government servants who die in harness
where the deceased Government servant has not
rendered one year continuous service has been
examined with reference to Government of India pension
rules in consultation with the accountant General.
According to sub rule (2) of Rule 54 of C.C.S.(Pension
Rules), 1972, the family of the deceased is entitled for
family pension even before completion of one year
continuous service provided the deceased Government
servant concerned immediately prior to his appointment
to the service for post was examined by the appropriate
Medical authority and declared fit by that authority for
Government service.”
9. Admittedly, in the present case. the first respondent's wife had
not submitted any medical / fitness certificate to the authority concerned at
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the time of her appointment. Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.967, dated 29.08.1989, is
not applicable to the case on hand. The said Government Order is applicable
only to the cases, where the deceased Government servant produced medical /
fitness certificate to the School Authority and died after completion of one year
from the date of approval of his / her appointment. Hence, we are of the view
that he first respondent has not satisfied the said G.O.Ms.No.967, dated
29.08.1989 and hence, he is not entitled to the relief sought for. Therefore, on
that sole ground the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge
warrants interference of this Court.
10. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and the order dated
12.12.2017, passed in W.P.(MD) No.2382 of 2010, is set aside. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[D.K.K., J.] [R.V., J.]
05.01.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Secretary,
Department of School Education,
State of Tamilnadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Office of District Educational Office,
Virudhunagar District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
krk
and
05.01.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
