Madras High Court
The Principal Accountant General (A&E) vs A.V.Jerald ... 1St on 19 June, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A(MD)No.1603 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A(MD)No.1603 of 2025
The Principal Accountant General (A&E),
No.361, Anna Salai,
Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 019. ... Appellant /
1st Respondent
Vs.
1.A.V.Jerald ... 1st Respondent /
Petitioner
2.The District Forest Officer,
Office of the District Forest,
Kanyakumari Division,
Nagercoil – 629 001.
3.The Treasury Officer,
District Treasury,
Tirunelveli District – 627 009. ... Respondents 2 & 3 /
Respondents 2 & 3
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the
order in W.P(MD)No.2972 of 2025 dated 10.02.2025 on the file of this Court
and to allow the Writ Appeal.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:54 am )
W.A(MD)No.1603 of 2025
For Appellant : Ms.S.Mahalakshmi
Standing Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
for R.2 & R.3
JUDGMENT
(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
A.Varuvel was working as Forester under the control of the District
Forest Officer in Kanyakumari. He became medically unfit in the year 1982.
During his lifetime, he was receiving pension. He died in the year 1998.
Thereafter, his wife Maria Rose was receiving family pension. She also passed
away in the year 2016. The couple had two sons, one of whom (Jerald) is
mentally retarded. After the demise of the parents, he is being taken care of by
his elder brother A.V.Tharsius.
2.Tharsius wrote to the department seeking payment of family pension
for his younger brother who is admittedly suffering from intellectual disability.
He sent representation after representation. To no avail. As a last resort, he
knocked the doors of the High Court. The writ petition was filed in the last
week of January, 2025. It was allowed by His Lordship Mr.Justice Battu
Devanand on 10.02.2025. When this appeal was taken up for admission today,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:54 am )
we were pleasantly surprised to be informed that the order of the learned Single
Judge has already been complied with. We wondered as to why this appeal has
been filed. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that since the learned
Single Judge had made certain strong remarks, the appellant wanted them to be
expunged. We gladly conceded the request taking into account the post-order
conduct of the appellant. The remarks passed against the appellant stand
expunged.
3.At this juncture, we were reminded that one Sujatha is yet to be as
lucky. Her father retired in the year 1996. In his pension book, the fact that
Sujatha is handicapped had been incorporated. The father passed away in 2020.
The mother too passed away on 29.06.2024. Application for sanctioning
family pension for Sujatha was submitted immediately thereafter. The office of
the appellant sought certain details and documents. Everything was furnished
by Dr.T.A.Lalitha, the younger sister of Sujatha, who had been appointed as the
legal guardian by the Collector of Chennai under Section 14 of the National
Trust Act, 1999. Even though all the documents were furnished, the AG's
office vide letter dated 10.01.2025 forwarded the admissibility report for family
pension to the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice
(Department of Justice), New Delhi to obtain sanction from the President of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:54 am )
India authorizing the family pension. Subsequently, Dr.T.A.Lalitha received a
letter from the AG's office enclosing the letter dated 07.02.2025 from the
Government of India seeking submission of the very same set of documents.
The matter lies there.
4.Why do we make a reference to the case of T.A.Sujatha?. Because she
happens to be the daughter of Shri.T.S.Arunachalam, one of the distinguished
judges of the Madras High Court, who retired as its Acting Chief Justice. He
was a leading lawyer in the criminal bar. He served the institution with great
distinction. The last part of his life was spent in spiritual pursuits. It is
agonising to note that his physically and mentally challenged daughter has not
been sanctioned family pension even though more than a year has passed since
her mother's demise. That she remains a dependent person is beyond doubt.
We call upon the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to liaison with
the authorities concerned and ensure that Ms.T.A.Sujatha, daughter of Justice
T.S.Arunachalam gets her family pension at the earliest.
5.The Rule position admits of no doubt. Rule 54(6) of CCS (Pension)
Rules states that if the son or daughter of a government servant is suffering
from any disorder or disability of mind including mental retardation so as to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:54 am )
render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of 25
years, the family pension shall be payable to such son or daughter for life. The
appointing authority shall satisfy that the handicap is of such a nature so as to
prevent him or her from earning his or her livelihood and the same shall be
evidenced by a certificate obtained from a Medical Board. On the same lines,
there are provisions in the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 also. Rule 49(6)
also states that a son or daughter suffering from disorder or disability of mind
which prevents him or her from earning his or her livelihood will be entitled to
family pension for life after the demise of the parents. The provision is to the
effect that a medical officer not below the rank of a civil surgeon has to give
certificate setting out the mental or physical condition of the child. Nowhere is
there any requirement to produce income certificate duly noting the income
from all sources. In the case of Jerald also, the appellant herein had insisted on
furnishing such a certificate. When the statutory rule itself contemplates
certificate only from a Doctor/Medical Board stating that the son/daughter of
the deceased employee by virtue of his or her mental or physically disability
cannot earn a livelihood on his or her own, the authority cannot ask for
anything more.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:54 am )
6.This issue was authoritatively settled three decades ago by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1995 Supp.(1) SCC 145 (Bhagwanti
Mamtani v. UOI). In the said case, the employer passed away in the year 1976.
In fact, he had retired in the year 1969, before CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 were
introduced. The original application seeking relief for the intellectually disabled
daughter was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal only in May
1986. Rejecting the argument founded on laches and prospective operation of
the Rules, the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave relief based on the report of the
Department of Psychiatry, AIIMS. The daughter was held entitled to the family
pension in terms of proviso to Rule 54(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972
with effect from 01.05.1986. This decision has been consistently followed.
7.Pension has always been characterized as a matter of right and not
charity or bounty. When it comes to extending the benefit for the mentally
disabled, the authority must exhibit alacrity. Such an approach alone would
subserve and effectuate the benevolent object with which the statutory rules
have been formulated. They should be seen as one more facet of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. We hold that the son/daughter of a pensioner who is
mentally disabled and who falls within the scope of the pension rules should be
disbursed with family pension on submission of the medical certificate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:54 am )
evidencing his/her incapacity to earn livelihood on their own without insisting
on certificate denoting income from all sources. The sanction order must be
passed without any delay after the documents mentioned in the statutory rules
are submitted.
8.This writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
[G.R.S., J.] & [K.R.S., J.]
19.06.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
MGA/SKM
To
1.The District Forest Officer,
Kanyakumari Division, Nagercoil – 629 001.
2.The Treasury Officer, District Treasury,
Tirunelveli District – 627 009.
Copy to :
1.The Registrar General, the Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:54 am )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
and
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
MGA/SKM
19.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:02:54 am )
