Madras High Court
Mathammal vs The Accountant General(A&E) on 2 September, 2025
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
W.P(MD)NO.12038 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH
COURT
DATED:02.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P(MD)No.12038 of 2021
Mathammal ... Petitioner
.Vs.
1.The Accountant General(A&E)
No.361, Anna Salai,
Chennai- 600 018.
2.The Block Educational Officer,
Kamuthi – 623 603,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in
Na.Ka.No.1377/AA2/2019, dated 7.1.2021 and the consequential
proceedings of the first respondent in No.P17/1/11724211/ADK,
dated 13.1.2021 and quash the same and to pay the family pension
to the Petitioner as per Rule 49(7)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Pension
Rules.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Srinivasan
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 06:54:12 pm )
W.P(MD)NO.12038 of 2021
For Respondent-1 : Mrs.S.Mahalakshmi
Standing Counsel
For Respondent-2 : Mr.S.Shaji Bino,
Special Govt.Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned
orders, dated 7.1.2021 passed by the second respondent and the
impugned order, dated 13.1.2021 passed by the first respondent
rejecting the Petitioner’s request for family pension in respect of
deceased Gopalakrishnan, who was working as Headmaster at
Mustakurichi Panchayat Union Middle School and had
subsequently retired from service on 13.12.1983, on the ground
that the Petitioner is not the legally wedded wife of the deceaded
Gopalakrishnan.
2.Admittedly, the Petitioner had married Gopalakrishnan
when the first wife of Gopalakrishnan namely, Radharukmani
was alive. The Petitioner claims that by customary practice,
Gopalakrishnan is allowed to have more than one wife. The
Petitioner also contends that the first wife of Gopalakrishnan
namerly, Radharukmani has also given her consent for the second
marriage. According to the Petitioner, she is the only person
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 06:54:12 pm )
W.P(MD)NO.12038 of 2021
entitled to receive the retirement benefits of her husband Late.
Gopalakrishnan, as per Rule 49(7)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Pension
Rules.
3.A counter has also been filed by the respondents denying
the contentions of the Petitioner. According to them, only in
accordance with law, the Petitioner been the second wife of the
deceased Gopalakrishnan and having married Gopalakrishnan
when his first wife was alive, is not entiled to receive the family
pension. Therefore, according to the respondents, they have
rightly rejected the Petitioner’s request for family pension under
the impugned orders.
4.Admittedly, the Petitiloner is the second wife of deceased
Gopalakrishnan, who was working as Headmaster at
Mustakurichi Panchayat Union Middle School and subsequently
retired from service on 13.12.1983, having married Gopalakrishnan
when his first wife Radharukmani was very much alive. The law
is now well settled by various decisions rendered by this Court,
which includes the Division Bench judgments rendered by this
Court in:
a) R.Rajathi .vs. The Superintendent Engineer and another in
W.A.NO.977 of 2017, dated 5.6.2018;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 06:54:12 pm )
W.P(MD)NO.12038 of 2021
b)Vijayalakshmi .vs. The Principal Accountant General(A&E),
Tamil Nadu and another reported in 2022-I-Writ L.R.360.
As per the above decision, a person who has married subsequent
to the coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, will
have to contract a valid marriage to enable her to receive family
pension in respect of a retired/deceased employee.
5.In the case on hand, the Petitioner has not contracted a
valid marrtiage with Gopalakrishnan and she has married him
when his first marriage with Radharukamni was subsisting.
6.The learned counsel for the Petitioner drew the attention of
this Court to the decision dated 26.7.2024 rendered by the
Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C)No.2365 of 2022 in the
case of Radha Devi .vs. The Chief General Manager and others in
support of his contention that since the first wife of the deceased
Gopalakrishnan having given consent for the Petitioner to receive
the family pension by exercising the view taken by the
Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, this Court
can direct the respondents to grant family pension to the
Petitioner, even though the Petitioner was the second wife of the
deceased Gopalakrishnan. The decision relied upon by the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 06:54:12 pm )
W.P(MD)NO.12038 of 2021
counsel for the Petitioner referred to supra, is a decision rendered
by the Honourable Supreme Court by exercising powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which power as High
Court, this Court does not have. Since the law is now well settled
by various decisions of the Constitutional Courts including this
Court as referred to supra, the question of permitting the
Petitioner to receive the family pension when admittedly the
Petitioner is the second wife of deceased Gopalakrishnan and she
has married Gopalakrishnan when his first wife was very much
alive, does not arise. This Court does not find any merit in this
Writ Petition.
7.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
02.09.2025
NCS : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
vsn
To
1.The Accountant General(A&E)
No.361, Anna Salai,
Chennai- 600 018.
2.The Block Educational Officer,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 06:54:12 pm )
W.P(MD)NO.12038 of 2021
Kamuthi – 623 603,
Ramanathapuram District.
ABDUL QUDDHOSE.,J.
vsn
ORDER MADE IN
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 06:54:12 pm )
W.P(MD)NO.12038 of 2021
02.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2025 06:54:12 pm )
