Madras High Court
Mesiyal vs The Chairman Tangedco on 5 September, 2024
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P.No.25630 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.25630 of 2024
and
W.M.P.No.27990 of 2024
Mesiyal .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman TANGEDCO,
NPKKR Maaligai,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.Internal Audit Officer,
TANGEDCO,
NPKKR Maaligai,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
MEDC, Mettur Dam,
Mettur – 636 401. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records on the file of the 2nd respondent with reference to the impugned
No.011632/298/F.7/F73/PPO No.35393/2022 dated 29.04.2022 and to
quash the same as illegal, unjust and arbitrary and to direct the
respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.No.25630 of 2024
For petitioner : Mr.D.Anand Raja
For Respondents : Mr.K.Rajkumar
Standing Counsel
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned
proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 29.04.2022 and for a
consequential direction to the respondents to grant family pension to the
petitioner.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel for the respondents.
3.The case of the petitioner is that her father was working as a
Helper at TANGEDCO. He attained superannuation and retired from
service on 30.06.2000. He was drawing pension during his lifetime. The
mother of the petitioner pre-deceased her father.
4.The further case of the petitioner is that she got married in the
year 1987 and out of the wedlock, three children were born. However,
there was a serious misunderstanding between the petitioner and her
husband. Hence, she left her matrimonial home and started living with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
her father from April, 2013 onwards. Thereafter, the petitioner also filed
IDOP No.147 of 2015 before the Principal District Judge, Namakkal,
seeking for dissolution of the marriage. By judgment dated 03.10.2017,
the petition was allowed and the marriage was dissolved.
5.The father of the petitioner during his lifetime made a request to
TANGEDCO for granting family pension to the petitioner after his
lifetime. Unfortunately, he died on 09.07.2017. The pension also seems
to have been continued till May 2022.
6.The petitioner made an independent representation for granting
family pension during March, 2019. According to the petitioner, the
respondent also sanctioned family pension through proceedings dated
22.03.2019 and by virtue of the same, the petitioner was receiving family
pension till May, 2022.
7.The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent through
proceedings dated 29.04.2022, straightaway stopped the payment of
family pension to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not
a dependent on her father and she is already married. The said order of
nd
the 2 respondent has been put to challenge in the present writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.In the considered view of this Court, the family pension was
sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner seems to have
received the family pension till May, 2022. If the 2nd respondent wanted
to conduct an independent inquiry and verify if the petitioner was
dependent on her father, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner
and necessary verification could have been made by calling for a report
from the Tahsildar belonging to the concerned Taluk. The Tahsildar after
proper verification can even issue a certificate if the petitioner is really
deserted women and she was actually living with her father and was
dependent on him. Without doing so, the 2nd respondent has straightaway
passed an order by stating that the petitioner was not dependent on her
father. It is not known as to how the 2nd respondent came to such a
conclusion even without conducting an inquiry and collecting necessary
materials.
9.In the light of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation
to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated
29.04.2022 and the same is hereby quashed. The matter is sent back to
the file of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent is directed to get the
necessary certificate from the Tahsildar and can inquire to find out if the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner is dependent on her father. The petitioner shall also be given
an opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent shall pass fresh
orders on its own merits and in accordance with law within a period of
eight (8) weeks.
10.In the result, this Writ Petition stands allowed with the above
directions. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
No costs.
05.09.2024
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1.The Chairman TANGEDCO,
NPKKR Maaligai,
144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
2.Internal Audit Officer,
TANGEDCO, NPKKR Maaligai,
144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
MEDC, Mettur Dam,
Mettur – 636 401.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
krk
05.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
