Madras High Court
B.Hajira Beevi vs The Accountant General (A&E) on 11 September, 2024
W.P.No.16102 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.No.16102 of 2021 and
W.M.P.Nos.17029 & 17032 of 2021
B.Hajira Beevi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Accountant General (A&E),
Teynampet, Chennai 18.
2.Shakila Banu ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first
respondent proceedings EN 27/Unit 4/C 401891/21653 dated 24.09.2020 and
quash the same and direct the first respondent to pay the pension to the
petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Manisekaran
For Respondents : M/s.Hema Muralikrishnan,
Standing Counsel for R1
No representation for R2
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16102 of 2021
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashment of the
order of the first respondent in proceedings EN 27/Unit 4/C 401891/21653
dated 24.09.2020 and to direct the first respondent to pay the pension to the
petitioner.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the
materials available on record.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
married the deceased employee and out of the wedlock, they had three sons.
Her husband worked as Sub Registrar at Co-operative Societies Department,
Coimbatore Region and he retired from service on 31.08.2007. He nominated
the petitioner as his wife in the pension payment order. As per the pension
payment order, after the death of her husband, the petitioner approached the
first respondent for payment of the family pension. After scrutinizing all the
documents, the first respondent had sanctioned the pension payment to the
petitioner. All of a sudden, on 29.12.2020, the petitioner received a letter from
the Assistant Treasury Officer, Palani, stating that the pension has been sent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to the District Treasury, Dindugal and hence, the petitioner approached the
Assistant Treasurer, Palani. They have informed that the 2nd respondent has
obtained an order in O.S.No.180 of 2016 dated 20.11.2018 on the file of the
District Munsif Court, Udumalpet stating that the 2nd wife of the deceased
employee objected for sanctioning the pension to the petitioner. Based on the
said order, the first respondent by a proceeding No.EN27/Unit 4/C
401891/21653 dated 24.09.2020, had stopped the family pension which was
issued to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by
way of this petition seeking a direction to the first respondent to pay the
pension to her.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent submitted that
subsequent to the death of the deceased employee on 15.08.2011, in letter
dated 30.06.2020, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Coimbatore
forwarded the application from one Shakila Banu, the second respondent
herein for grant of 50% of family pension as the second wife of the deceased
I.Bose. The said proposals was accompanied by the judgment dated
20.11.2018 of the District Magistrate Court, Udumalpet in O.S.No.180 of
2016, whereby the second respondent has been declared as one of the legal
heir of the deceased I.Bose and the Marriage Certificate dated 13.09.2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
issued by the Madrasayea Rahmania Sunnathval Jama-ath, Pollachi,
Coimbatore. On that ground, the second marriage of the deceased I.Bose with
the second respondent is legal. As per the explanation under Rule 49(7)(b) of
the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, the second wife of a Government
Servant is entitled to 50% share of family pension, if the second marriage is
solemnized under the Mohammadan Law in which bigamy is permissible.
Accordingly, 50% of family pension was authorised to the petitioner under
fresh PPO No.D2725968 with effect from 01.01.2021 and 50% of the
remaining pension was authorised to the second respondent under PPO
NO.D2725969 on 26.04.2021, under the due intimation to the beneficiaries.
He has also produced the authorisation record dated 26.04.2021 pertaining to
pension of the deceased employee.
5. On perusal of the records, it reveals that the petitioner and the second
respondent are equally entitled to receive the family pension of the deceased
employee which is evident from the authorisation pension record and hence,
the petitioner is not entitled to receive the entire pension. Considering this
aspect, this Court finds that the claim of the petitioner is devoid of merits.
6.With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
11.09.2024
vkr
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
To
1.The Accountant General (A&E),
Teynampet, Chennai 18.
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
vkr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16102 of 2021 and
W.M.P.Nos.17029 & 17032 of 2021
11.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
