The Supreme Court sets aside the respondent's order denying family pension to the petitioner's husband and remands the case for fresh consideration, holding that receipt of military pension does not preclude claiming State family pension.
Impugned orders set aside and matter remanded to fourth respondent for fresh consideration within eight weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.09.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
W.P.No.23700 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014
S.Dhanalakshmi .. Petitioner vs. 1.Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015. 3.The District Forest Officer, Hosur Forest Division, Hosur Animal Husbandry Post Mathirigi, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
4.The Principal Accountant General, (Accounts & Entitlements) Tamil Nadu, No.361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records which culminated in issuing the proceedings in Pen 33/3/13306620/11-12/ADK dated 19.10.2011 and the subsequent proceedings in Pen 34/3/13401990/FP/2013-14/ADK dated 22.10.2013, both on the file of the fourth respondent, quash the both the orders and consequently direct the fourth respondent to sanction and disburse the eligible family pension to the petitioner with arrears and accrued interest on account of the death of her husband Selvaraj, who died in service as Jeep Driver with the respondents 1 to 3, within a time frame.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mani For Respondents : Mr.N.Inbanathan, Government Advocate (Forests)
O R D E R
The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records which culminated in issuing the proceedings in Pen 33/3/13306620/11-12/ADK dated 19.10.2011 and the subsequent proceedings in Pen 34/3/13401990/FP/2013-14/ADK dated 22.10.2013, both on the file of the fourth respondent, quash the both the orders and consequently direct the fourth respondent to sanction and disburse the eligible family pension to the petitioner with arrears and accrued interest on account of the death of her husband Selvaraj, who died in service as Jeep Driver with the respondents 1 to 3, within a time frame.
the petitioner requesting for family pension was forwarded to the Accountant General, Chennai along with detailed pension proposal based on data of Additional Director, Ex-Servicemen Welfare Board, Chennai vide letter No.9438/2008 dated 3.04.2006 for sanction of family pension to the petitioner and the said proposal was rejected, vide impugned order dated 19.10.2011, stating that the recipient of ex-servicemen pension is not eligible for State Family Pension as per Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Environment and Forest Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Panagal Building, Saidapet,
Chennai-600 015.
3.The District Forest Officer,
Hosur Forest Division,
Hosur Animal Husbandry Post
Mathirigi, Hosur,
Krishnagiri District.
4.The Principal Accountant General,
(Accounts & Entitlements) Tamil Nadu,
No.361, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.
+1cc to Mr.Mani, Advocate Sr.51868
+1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.51723
W.P.No.23700 of 2014
mg[co]
srg 05/10/2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether receipt of military pension operates as a bar to claim State family pension.
Whether the petitioner is eligible for family pension under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules despite receiving military pension.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K.Gunasundari v. The Principal Accountant General, ChennaiFollowed¶18
W.P.No.7299 of 2013 dated 10.01.2014 [K.Gunasundari v. The Principal Accountant General, Chennai-18 and two others]
Tamil Nadu Arasu Pokkuvarathu Madurai Thozhilalar Sangam vs. Government of Tamil NaduFollowed¶18
Tamil Nadu Arasu Pokkuvarathu Madurai Thozhilalar Sangam vs. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2010 (2) CWC 555
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S.Dhanalakshmi
Government of Tamil Nadu
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
District Forest Officer
Principal Accountant General
R.SUBBIAH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
