G. Pushpam vs The Superintending Engineer, TNEB

D. Hari Paranthaman, J.—The petitioner has challenged the proceedings dated 21.05.2015 in of the respondent refusing to sanction family pension due to the death of her husband Thiru. A. Ganesan, who was employed as a Junior Engineer Grade-I under the respondent. Thiru. A. Ganesan died on 15.08.2012 while in service.

According to the petitioner, she is the second wife of her deceased husband Thiru. A. Ganesan. The first wife of Thiru. A. Ganesan died on 10.07.2005. Thereafter, Thiru. A. Ganesan married the petitioner on 15.07.2007. The petitioner is none other than the daughter of the sister of the deceased Ganesan. After the marriage with Thiru. A. Ganesan, the petitioner gave birth to one female child namely, Akilandeswari on 02.06.2008. Thereafter, Thiru. A. Ganesan died on 15.08.2012. In the said circumstances, the petitioner claimed family pension, but the same was declined by the impugned order. It is useful to extract the following passage from the impugned order:--

It is not in dispute that the first wife of the deceased Ganesan died on 10.07.2005 and a death certificate to that effect is enclosed in the typed set of papers.

The Birth Certificate of Akilandeswari dated 02.07.2008 is also enclosed in the typed set of papers. As per the Birth Certificate issued by the competent authority, the father of Akilandeswari is the deceased Ganesan and the mother is the petitioner. As per the Birth Certificate, Akilandeswari was born on 02.06.2008. The same was registered on 12.06.2008. As per the Birth Certificate, the place of birth of Akilandeswari is Government Hospital at Trichy.

In view of the aforesaid Birth Certificate, the respondent is not justified in refusing to pay the family pension to the petitioner by stating one reason or other.

Furthermore, the legal heirship certificate was issued by the Tahsildar, Karaikudi, stating that the petitioner is the second wife and she is a widow due to the death of Thiru. Ganesan. Further, the legal heirship certificate shows that Akilandeswari is the daughter of the petitioner. The legal heirship certificate also shows that one Karthikeyan is the son born to the first wife of Thiru. Ganesan. The said Karthikeyan gave an affidavit that he has no objection to give family pension to his step-mother, who is the petitioner herein.

There is also another letter issued by the Village Administrative Officer, Tiruppathur Taluk that the petitioner is the second wife of the deceased Ganesan and the marriage of the petitioner with the deceased Ganesan took place after the death of the first wife of Ganesan and that the petitioner gave birth to Akilandeswari on 02.06.2008.

In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the respondent is not justified in refusing to pay family pension to the petitioner and the minor daughter of the deceased Ganesan, as per the pension rules applicable to TANGEDCO.

For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is quashed and the respondent is directed to pay family pension to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with all arrears as per the rules.

The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.