Dismissed

K.Dhanalakshmi v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC18 Feb 2015WP/33453/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that the petitioner, widow of a deceased transport employee, is similarly situated to previous judgment holders and is entitled to family pension. The respondent State was directed to dispose of the pension claim within three months.

What did the court decide?

The first respondent directed to consider petitioner's representation and dispose of it within three months from receipt of this order. Writ petition disposed.

K.Dhanalakshmi Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.02.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.33453 of 2014

¶6

K.Dhanalakshmi ... Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary Transport Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., (Old Name Thiruvalluvar Transport Corpn.Ltd.) rep.by its Managing Director Pallavan Salai Chennai 600 002. 3. The Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Regional Office No.20, Royapettah High Road Chennai 600 014. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to grant family pension and for payment of arrears of family pension to the petitioner from 01.06.1994, the date of the death of the petitioner's husband by following the judgments in W.A.No.1246 of 2009 dated 18.08.2010, and in W.P.Nos.33975 of 2005 and 35674 of 2005 dated 20.09.2011.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan for Mr.V.S.Jagadeesan

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Ramesh Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.P.Kannan Kumar for R2

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The husband of the petitioner was an employee of erstwhile State Transport Department. His services were regularized. Subsequent to the formation of Transport Corporation for the State of Tamil Nadu, he was absorbed in State Express Transport Corporation. The husband of the petitioner had contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme till his death. After his death, the petitioner received pension under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1995. The claim made by the petitioner for payment of family pension was not considered by the respondents inspite of showing the orders passed by the High Court and the related orders passed by the Government sanctioning pension. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider her application and sanction pension.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent.

¶15

The issue raised by the petitioner is covered by the judgments of this Court dated 18.08.2010 in W.A.No.1246 of 2009 and 20.09.2011 in W.P.Nos.33975 of 2005 and 35674 of 2005 respectively. This Court under similar circumstances, directed the Government to pay pension to the widow of the concerned employee. The petitioner is also similarly situated. She is entitled to the benefit of earlier orders.

¶16

The first respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 01.09.2013, in the light of the orders passed by this Court in W.A.No.1246 of 2009 and W.P.Nos.33975 of 2005 and 35674 of 2005 and the consequential order passed by the Government in G.O.(3D)No.62, Transport (RW1) Department dated 24.12.2014. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

Sd/-

Asst. Registrar

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar.
Vj2
To
1. The Secretary to
Government of Tamil Nadu
Transport Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Managing Director
State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.,
(Old Name Thiruvalluvar Transport Corpn.Ltd.)
Pallavan Salai
Chennai 600 002.
3. The Commissioner
Employees Provident Fund
Regional Office
No.20, Royapettah High Road
Chennai 600 014.
+1cc to Mr.V.S.Jagadeesan, Advocate, S.R.No.9176
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.9235
W.P.No.33453 of 2014
RSY(CO)
CA(10/03/2015)

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Dhanalakshmi v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Dhanalakshmi v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Ramasamy Vs The Director of Animal

D.Roselin Joyce, Vs Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies

S.Alexraj Vs The State of Tamilnadu

S.Johnbosco Vs the Chief Engineer

M.Hemavathi Vs The Commissioner

R.Pravin Raj, Vs State of Tamil Nadu