S. Selvamani vs The Chief Educational Officer

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order dated 27.01.2014 and to direct the respondents to pay family pension to the petitioner with effect from February 2013.

The petitioner is the widow of one Srichozha Mannar Kanagaraja, who was working as Junior Assistant in the first respondent Department and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.1989. The petitioner''s husband is said to have died on 07.01.2013. In the Legal Heirship Certificate issued to the petitioner, dated 19.04.2013, the petitioner has been shown as wife of the deceased. With a copy of the Death Certificate, Legal Heirship Certificate, the copy of the Ration Card and Bank Passbook, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents requesting for family pension. The request made by the petitioner has been rejected by the first respondent stating that during the time when the petitioner''s husband was in service, he had not nominated the petitioner as his wife and now, at this stage, they cannot consider the petitioner''s request.

The learned counsel for the petitioner after referring to the factual details submitted that an identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in the case of J. Kanniga Parameswari Vs. Special Commissioner, Chennai and others, reported in 2007(3) CTC 630, in which this Court allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to exercise their power under Rule 82 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

It is true that the petitioner''s husband has not nominated the petitioner in the pension papers prior to his retirement from service. If the petitioner''s case is genuine and there is no dispute to the fact that she is lawfully wedded wife of the deceased Government employee, technicalities should not stand in the way of the respondents from sanctioning the pension, since the Tamil Nadu Pension Service Rules empowers them to dispense with or relax the requirement of the rules in deserving cases, after considering the entire facts. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the authority concerned should consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the earlier decision.

At this stage, it is beneficial to refer to the operative portion of the decision in the case of J. Kanniga Parameswari, referred to supra, which reads as follows;

"7. It is an admitted position as referred above, the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Government servant and that there is no dispute with regard to her status and as referred above, she was also getting maintenance as ordered by the learned Magistrate. It is not the case of the respondents-Department that there was a divorce between the petitioner and the deceased Government servant Jeyakan. Apart from this, only on the ground that no nomination has been made in Form-E, the family pension has been negatived to the petitioner.

But, under Rule 82 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, power of relaxation has been given wherein any department of the Government is satisfied that the operation of any of these rules causes hardship in any particular case, the Department, may by order for reasons to be recorded in writing, dispense with or relax the requirements that would require to such an extent and subject to exceptions and conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner.

As far as this case is concerned, only on technicalities, family pension has been denied to the petitioner and apart from this, though a stand has been taken by the respondents and also the petitioner was informed that in Form-E, nomination has not been made and therefore, she is not eligible for any benefit, the object of the family pension scheme is to enable the family of the deceased Government servant to survive even after his death. It is an admitted fact that the husband of the petitioner was an employee of the third respondent and after his retirement, he was given all the terminal benefits and till his death, he has also received pension. As such when a welfare measure has been introduced with the purpose to enable the family of the deceased Government to survive, that cannot be defeated standing on mere technicalities. If the impugned order is allowed to stand, in my opinion, the object of the scheme will be defeated. That apart, when the power of relaxation has been given, using that power of relaxation, the condition of nomination can be relaxed and the petitioner''s request of family pension can be considered and the family pension can be sanctioned to the petitioner.

In view of the above reasoning, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the authority concerned to exercise the power under Rule 82 of the Pension Rules and to relax the condition relating to the nomination and to sanction and pay the family pension to the petitioner from the next day of the death of her husband viz., Mr. Jayakan, who was an employee of the third respondent and who died on 26.01.2006, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."

The facts of the present case is also identical to the case referred to supra, in which a direction has been issued to the authority concerned to exercise their power under Rule 82 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and to relax the condition relating to the nomination and pay the family pension to the petitioner from the next date of death of her husband.

In the light of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the authority concerned to exercise their powers under Rule 82 of the Pension Rules after verifying the facts, relax the condition relating to the nomination and sanction and pay family pension to the petitioner from the next date of the death of her husband viz., Late Srichozha Mannar Kanagaraj, who was working as a Junior Assistant in the first respondent department, who died on 07.01.2013, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.