Allowed

G.Ramar v. the Tamilnadu State

Madras HC12 May 2017WP(MD)/16936/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Madras High Court bench allowed a writ petition seeking mandamus for the disbursement of death cum retirement benefits and family pension to the petitioner's deceased wife. The court directed the respondents to process the pending files and pay the benefits with interest for the unreasonable delay in service. The department was given four weeks to submit proposals, with six weeks for the fina

What did the court decide?

Directed the fourth respondent to forward proposals for disbursement of death cum retirement benefits to the second and third respondents; the first respondent to pass orders on merits within six week

G.Ramar Vs the Tamilnadu State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 12.05.2017

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

W.P (MD)No.16936 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014

G.Ramar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Tamil Nadu State Represented by its Principal secretary to Government, Social Welfare & Nutritious Meal Programme Department Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Social Welfare & Nutritious Meal Programme, No.58, Arunachalam Street, Chintadaripet, Chennai – 600 002. 3.The District Project Officer, Integrated child Development Scheme, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai. 4.The Child Development Project Officer, O/o.Child Development Project Officer, Annavasal Post, Pudukottai District. 5.The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, Teynampet, Chennai-18. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to disburse all terminal benefits of the petitioner's wife Late.R.Parameswari, Community Nutrition Supervisor Grade-II along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of her death to till the date of payment and to grant family pension https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanakumar. For Respondent : Mrs.S.Bharathi, Government Advocate.

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to disburse all terminal benefits of the petitioner's wife Late.R.Parameswari, Community Nutrition Supervisor Grade-II along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of her death to till the date of payment and to grant family pension to the petitioner.

¶16

2.The case of the petitioner is that wife of the petitioner was appointed as “Bala Sevika” on 01.10.1974 and her services were regularised on 19.07.1982. Thereafter, her probation was also declared on 14.03.1984. As per G.O.Ms.No.2119, Social Welfare (SW.IV) Department, dated 04.11.1987, the Integrated Nutritious project, where the petitioner was working, and the Chief Minister's Nutritious Meal Programme were integrated, as one scheme called Integrated Child Development Scheme, Under the said scheme, the petitioner's wife also was brought in and her designation namely “Bala Sevika” was re-designated as “Community Nutrition Supervisor Grade-II” on 19.11.1987.

¶17

3.Thereafter, the petitioner's wife was promoted as Supervisor on 16.09.1990. while she was working at Virudhunagar as Supervisor, she was transferred to Annavasal at Pudukottai District on 13.09.2001. In the said transferred place, the petitioner's wife joined duty on 05.03.2002. Though the petitioner's wife joined duty on 05.03.2002 at Annavasal, she became sick. Therefore, she applied for medical leave form 10.04.2002.

¶18

4.As the sickness of the petitioner's wife was continuance in nature, she was not able to rejoin the duty for several years. Ultimately, the petitioner's wife died on 18.05.2010.

¶19

5.After the death of the petitioner's wife, the petitioner had sent representations dated 22.11.2010 and 09.04.2011 with all relevant documents including legal heir certificate and nomination details seeking her Death cum Retirement Benefits as well as pensionary benefits including the family pension payable to the petitioner's wife. Since the said representation was not considered so far, the petitioner had given another representation on 09.05.2014. Even the said representation was not considered and nothing was forthcoming from the respondents regarding the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ disbursement of the retirement cum death benefits to the petitioner's wife, the petitioner has approached this Court with the present Writ Petition with the aforesaid prayer.

¶20

¶21

6.Mr.M.Saravanakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the service details furnished by the petitioner are not in dispute. Though the petitioner's wife joined duty in the transferred place i.e., at Annavasal on 05.03.2002, she became sick from 10.04.2002 and thereafter, she applied for medical leave. As her illness continued, she could not turn up for duty immediately. Therefore, medical leave was extended for longer period and in fact, she went on leave for some years till her last day ie., on 18.05.2010, she died.

¶22

7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also rely upon a reply given by the fourth respondent dated 07.08.2014 under RTI query raised by the petitioner which reads thus:-

¶23

“ghh;itapy; fz;l fojj;jpd;go nkw;ghh;itahsh; epiy-2> jpUkjp.Mh;.gunk];thp (,wg;g [) vd;gthpd; fzth; jfty; mwpa [k ; chpikr;rl;lj;jpd; fPH; md;dhh; nfl;fg;gl;l nfs;tpf;F thpir thhpahf fPH;fz;lgo gjpy; jug;gl;Ls;sJ.

¶24

nfs;tp-1& vdJ kidtp nkw;ghh;itahsh; epiy-2> jpUkjp.Mh;.gunk];thp (,wg;g [)> mth;fSf;F vJtiu Cjpak; tHq;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. tHq;fhj Cjpak; ,Ue;jhy; vt;tst [ bjhif?

¶25

gjpy;& md;dhh; ,t;tYtyfj;jpy; gzpnaw;w ehs; 05.03.2002> Kjy; 31.03.2002 tiu cs;s ntis ehl;fspd; Cjpak; PAY-4800, PP-225, DA-2261(45%), HRA-270, MA-50, FTA-100, vd;w tpfpjj;jpy; 27/31 ehl;fSf;F Cjpak; mjpy; gpoj;j bjhif GPF-1000, GPF Recovery-2000, 5/12-jtid> FBF-20, HI-10, bkhj;jk;-3030> gpoj;jk; nghf md;dhuJ Cjpak; U:gha; ;&3683/-cs;sJ. md;dhuJ Cjpag;gl;oay; fU:t{yfj;jpy; rkh;g;gpg;gjw;F Kd;du; md;dhh; vt;tpj jftYkpd;wp gzpapy; ,Ue;J brd;W tpl;ljhy;> gl;oay; fUt{yfj;jpy; rkh;gpf;fg;gltpy;iy.

¶26

nfs;tp-2&

¶27

vdJ kidtpapd; ,wg;g [ kw;Wk; thupR rhd;wpjHpy;fspy; jhq;fs; ,Jtiu nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;l eltof;if vd;d?

¶28

gjpy;& nky; eltof;iff;fhf nfhg;g [fspy; cs;sJ.

¶29

nfs;tp-3& vdJ Fhe;ijfspy; ahUf;fhtJ fUiz mog;gilapy; thhpR ntiy nfhhp rkh;gpj;j vdJ 09.04.2011 ehspl;l tpz;zg;gj;jpd; kPjhd jw;nghija epiy vd;d?

¶30

gjpy;& jpUkjp.Mh;.gunk];thp (,wg;g [)> nkw;ghh;itahsh; epiy-2> 3/2002w;F gpd;dh; md;dhiu gw;wp ahbjhU jftYk; ,y;iy> gpd;dh; 18.05.2010-y; md;dh; ,we; ;Jtpl;lhh; vd;w jfty; jq;fsJ K:ykhf ,t;tYtyfj;jpw;F fpilf;fg;bgw;wJ. md;dhh; gzpg [hpe;j fhyk; Kjy; ,we;j fhyk; tiu 8- tUlq;fs; ,ilbtsp cs;sJ. vdnt md;dhuJ thupR jhuh;fSf;F fUiz mog;gilapy; muR ntiy tHq;Ftjpy; Kud;ghL ,Uf;fpd;wJ> jq;fSila tpz;zg;gk; nfhg;g [fspy; guhkhpf;fg;gl;L tUfpwJ.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

nfs;tp-4& vdJ kidtp jpUkjp.Mh;.gunk];thp (,wg;g [)> nkw;ghh;itahsh; epiy-2> vd;gthpd; jw;nghija epiy Fwpj;J jq;fsJ mYtyf tUif gjpntL kw;Wk; nfhg;g [fspy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s epiy vd;d?

¶34

gjpy;& nky; eltof;iff;F ghprPyidapy; cs;sJ.”

¶35

8.By citing the said reply given by the fourth respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after the death of the wife of the petitioner was brought to the notice of the respondents especially, the third and fourth respondents' office, they have not forwarded the Death cum Retirement and Pensionary papers of the petitioner's wife for necessary sanction of the said amount and disburse the same. However, when specific queries were raised by the petitioner, it was answered by the fourth respondent that the said files are pending for further action. Even after the death of his wife, the petitioner was not able to get the fruits of retirement/terminal benefits and this kind of inaction for longer period on the part of the respondents, is totally unjustifiable. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a suitable direction may be given to the respondents to consider the requests of the petitioner for the grant of terminal benefits of his deceased wife.

¶36

9.Per contra, Mrs.S.Bharathi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that though the petitioner's wife joined duty in the transferred place at Annavasal on 05.03.2002, she worked only for a shorter period in that place and from 10.04.2002 onwards, she did not turn up for duty. Though it was claimed by the petitioner's side that his wife had submitted medical leave for her illness, there is no proof to show that the petitioner's wife had applied for proper medical leave for such a longer period and in that case, whether the petitioner's wife had been referred to medical board for sanctioning of longer leave for years together, has not been proved by the petitioner. Therefore, the long absence on the part of the petitioner's wife without any intimation to the employer is the reason for not taking any further action on the files of the petitioner's wife for any retirement benefits. In fact, the said reason has also been given by the fourth respondent in the reply dated 07.08.2014 under RTI Act. The learned Government Advocate would submit that there is no inaction on the part of the respondents in this regard.

¶37

10.This Court has considered the said rival submissions made by both sides. Insofar as the service of the petitioner's wife is concerned, it is not in dispute that till 10.04.2002 she had a long service and she also worked in the transferred place, only from 10.04.2002 petitioner's wife did not join duty and in this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ regard, though it was claimed by the petitioner that the petitioner's wife had submitted medical leave for her illness,

¶38

¶39

there is no proof to show that the petitioner's wife had applied for proper medical leave for such a longer period and it was sanctioned by the concerned authorities.

¶40

Be that as it may, since the petitioner's wife died on 08.05.2010, till such time, there was no action initiated by the respondents by way of disciplinary proceedings for the alleged reasons for unauthorised absence for a longer period on the part of the petitioner's wife and the same become impermissible or impossible as of now, therefore, the respondents cannot take any advantage of the situation that the petitioner's wife was absent for a longer period without getting proper sanction of medical leave.

¶41

Insofar as the terminal as well as the other benefits, such as Death cum Retirement Benefits of the petitioner's wife is concerned, whatever she would be entitled has to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased Government Servant. Here, in the case in hand, since the petitioner, being the husband of the deceased Government Servant and in this regard, he had also made one after another representations to the respondents with relevant documents including the legal heir certificate, it is for the respondents to act upon immediately and some decision must be taken with regard to the disbursement of the Death cum Retirement Benefits payable to the petitioner's wife. However, for years together, since no action was forthcoming from the respondents, for every justification on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to seek a remedy from this Court by way of Writ of Mandamus.

¶42

In view of the above stated facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶43

(i)The fourth respondent shall take in to account of the representation of the petitioner, dated 09.05.2014 along with documents such as legal heir certificate etc., filed by him and on consideration of the same, the necessary proposals for the disbursement of Death cum Retirement Service benefits to the petitioner's wife shall be forwarded to the second and third respondents. In this regard, if the fourth respondent wants any more particulars to be obtained from the petitioner's side, the same can also be obtained and on receipt of the same, the necessary proposals can be forwarded to the second and third respondents.

¶44

(ii)The second and third respondents on consideration of the same, shall forward to the first respondent and the first respondent after receipt of such proposals from the second respondent, shall consider and decide the same on merits and in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accordance with law by taking into account the long service rendered by the petitioner's wife in the respondents' department from 1974 till 2010 and accordingly pass necessary orders with

¶45

¶46

regard to the sanctioning and disbursing of terminal benefits to the petitioner's wife, which is payable to the petitioner.

¶47

(iii)The needful as has been directed shall be done by the fourth respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, on receipt of the proposal, the same shall be considered and forwarded by the second and the third respondents within a period of four weeks, thereafter to the first respondent and on receipt of such proposals from the second respondent, the first respondent shall consider and pass orders on the same within a period of six weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶50

/True Copy/

¶51

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶52

¶53

1.The Principal secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu,

¶54

Social Welfare & Nutritious Meal Programme Department Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶55

2.The Commissioner of Social Welfare &

¶56

Nutritious Meal Programme, No.58, Arunachalam Street,

¶57

Chintadaripet, Chennai – 600 002.

¶58

3.The District Project Officer, Integrated child Development Scheme, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.

¶59

4.The Child Development Project Officer, O/o.Child Development Project Officer, Annavasal Post, Pudukottai District.

¶60

5.The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, Teynampet, Chennai-18.

¶61

+1cc to M/S. M.SARAVANAKUMAR, Advocate, SR.No.56500.

¶62

W.P(MD)No.16936 of 2014 12.05.2017

¶63

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

¶64

Km/Ls/Ns

¶65

SDS/SKN:RSK/SAR 3/13.07.2017/6P/6C

G.Ramar v. the Tamilnadu State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Ramar v. the Tamilnadu State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Sri Priya Vs the Director of Fisheries

V. Chandru Vs the Commissioner

Dr.M.Balakrishnan, Vs the Director of Collegiate

J. Subramanian, Vs the Commissioner of Police

Kanahavalli, Vs the Chairman

Kavitha, Aw/O Muniyandi, Vs the Seate Repd. by the