Allowed

S.Mohana v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC17 Feb 2017WP/34194/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition secured service family pension for the petitioner, effective from 13.08.2004, by following a Division Bench precedent. The order allows the petitioners' claim provided they forego the EPF family pension, with dues to be adjusted against the new pension amount.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed on terms: sanction of service family pension from 13.08.2004 upon undertaking to forego EPF pension; adjustment of EPF dues from pension arrears.

S.Mohana Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17.02.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.No.34194 of 2012

¶6

S. Mohana .. Petitioner vs.

¶7

The Secretary to Government
Transport Department
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Managing Director
State Express Transport
Corporation (SETC)
Pallavan Salai
Chennai – 600 002.
3. The Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner, Royapettah
Chennai – 600 014. .. Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first and second respondents to take steps for sanction of service family pension to the petitioner from 07.03.2001, on receipt of an undertaking by the petitioner to forego the EPF Family pension now being received by her and to make payments within a time limit and to pass necessary orders.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. Ma.P. Thangavel

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to direct the first and second respondents to take steps for

¶12

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

¶13

sanction of service family pension to her from 07.03.2001, on receipt of an undertaking by the petitioner, to forego the EPF Family pension now being received by her and to make payments within a stipulated time.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the decision issued by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1246 of 2009 on 18.08.2010.

¶15

The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is

¶16

extracted below :

¶17

“ 22. Therefore, we are of the view that the respondents were not justified in denying family pension to the appellant solely on the ground that she was receiving pension under Employees' P.F. Scheme.

¶18

the learned counsel for the appellant on instructions would submit that the appellant is prepared to exercise the option by restricting her claim to the family pension as announced by the Government in G.O.Ms. No.110 dated 6.6.2002 and the subsequent order in G.O.Ms.No.189 dated 13.08.2004.

¶19

Accordingly, we direct the first respondent to sanction the family pension to the appellant with effect from 13.08.2004. Such exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, she is not entitled to the Employees' Provident Fund pension. The first respondent is permitted to deduct the Employees' Provident Fund Pension paid to the appellant for the period from 13.08.2004, as well as the amount paid to her husband by way of Employee's contribution viz. Rs. 50,788/- from the arrears payable to her. In case the arrears amount is not sufficient to recover the amount indicated above, it is open to the respondents to recover the balance from the monthly pension payable to the petitioner in 36 equal instalments.”

¶20

In view of the above decision, the 2^nd respondent is directed to submit the proposal to the 1^st respondent, within a period of six weeks, to sanction the family pension of the petitioner, with effect from 13.08.2004. On receipt of the said proposal, the 1^st respondent is directed to sanction the family pension to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks, thereafter. The amount already granted to the petitioner under

¶21

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

¶22

Employees' Provident Fund pension, shall be adjusted at the time of sanctioning the family pension amount to the petitioner.

¶23

The writ petition is allowed, on the above terms.

¶24

No costs.

¶25

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
avr
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Transport Department
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Managing Director
State Express Transport
Corporation (SETC)
Pallavan Salai
Chennai – 600 002.
3. The Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner, Royapettah
Chennai – 600 014.
+1cc to M/s.Ma.P.Thangavel, Advocate SR.No.10498
+1cc to M/s.R.P.Prathap Singh, Advocate SR.No.10961
+1cc to M/s.A.P.Surya Prakasam, Advocate SR.No.10450
W.P.No.34194 of 2012
SJ(CO)
GN(20/04/2017)

¶26

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

S.Mohana v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Mohana v. the Secretary to Government

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

M.Vinayagam, Vs the Director

Y.Prakash, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

P.Prabhakaran, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Adaikalam Vs the Secretary to Government

Sandhya, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

S.Thiyagu, S/O.M.Samikannu Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by