Remanded

A.Rajeswari, v. the Disrtict Collector

Madras HC13 Feb 2017WP(MD)/18304/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders denying full family pension due to dispute over her husband's second wife. Court directed filing of civil suit, continued payment of 50% pension, and expedited trial timeline.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file civil suit for heirship; respondents to continue paying 50% pension.

What the court decided

A.Rajeswari, Vs the Disrtict Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.02.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.18304 of 2015 and MP Nos.1 & 2 OF 215

A.Rajeswari

... Petitioner

-vs-

The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶11

The Accountant General (A&E), 341, Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶12

The Tahsildar, Tambaram, Chennai.

¶13

Jeyalakshmi ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned orders issued by the 3^rd respondent in Pa.Mu.5093/2012/A4 dated 05.09.2012 and the consequential order issued by the 1^st respondent in Na.Ka.K1/8276/2013 dated 11.12.2014, quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the family pension to the petitioner due to the death of her husband late Ramasubbu, Deputy Tahsildar, Virudhunagar District.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mrs.A.Rajeswari Party-in-person For R1 & R3 : Mr.M.Rajarajan Govt. Advocate For R2 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran For R4 : No Appeareance ******

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the order of the 3^rd respondent passed in Pa.Mu.5093/2012/A4 dated 05.09.2012 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and the consequential order issued by the 1^st respondent in Na.Ka.K1/8276/2013 dated 11.12.2014, by which the 1^st respondent

¶17

¶18

has communicated to the 4^th respondent that the parties, including the petitioner herein have to approach the competent civil Court for claiming any rights as Wife. In the meanwhile, the 3^rd respondent issued a legalheirship certificate dated 05.09.2012 to the 4^th respondent, which is also impugned in this writ petition. The petitioner also sought a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the family pension to the petitioner due to the death of her husband late Ramasubbu, Deputy Tahsildar, Virudhunagar District.

¶19

The case of the petitioner is as follows:

¶20

i) Her deceased husband was a retired Deputy Tahsildar and retired from service on 30.04.1993; that he was drawing pension and passed away on 07.03.2012; that the petitioner submitted that she is the legally wedded wife and she is entitled to the family pension due to her after the demise of her husband; that in the service record, her husband has mentioned his son, Kumaravel, born through the petitioner as nominee and that originally, her name was also in the record.

¶21

The 2^nd respondent would contend that the petitioner's husband at the time of retirement, has mentioned his son's name Kumaravel as nominee apart from stating that he is a divorcee in the application dated 01.03.1993. He would further contend that pursuant to the order of this Court 50% of the amount is being disbursed to the petitioner and the District Collector has also passed a detailed order stating that there is a dispute between two ladies, claiming themselves as wives of Ramasubbu, even though there is no evidence to show that there is any judgment and decree of the Trial Court to prove the factum of Ramasubuu obtaining divorce from the petitioner herein.

¶22

Though Jeyalakshmi / 4^th respondent herein has been duly served with substituted service by effecting paper publication and the said service is also complete, she has not entered her appearance either in person or by counsel. It is seen that Jeyalakshmi has also filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.3680 of 2013 claiming that she is alone the legally wedded wife of Ramasubbu and that she is entitled to the pensionary benefits of Ramasubbu.

¶23

The petitioner, who appeared in Court as party-in-person, appears to be partially blind and therefore, her daughter, by name Karapagam, was allowed to make submission on her behalf. She has submitted that no order has been produced by 4^th respondent either before this Court or before the authority to show that divorce was already granted to the petitioner.

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. This submission cannot be accepted, as it is for the petitioner to produce the judgment, because divorce is said to have been obtained by Ramasubbu against this petitioner only and

¶25

¶26

not against Jeyalakshmi. In any event, separate legal heirship certificates were produced by the petitioner as well as by the 4^th respondent. The legal hership certificate produced by the petitioner contains names of the petitioner, her son and daughter and the other one issued by the 3^rd respondent contains the name of Jeyalakshmi alone.

¶27

Admittedly, the petitioner has been residing with her daughter in Aruppukkottai, whereas late Ramasubbu was residing at Kolathur, Chennai, as it is stated that his son Kumaravel was employed at SRM College. Even though it was vehemently contended by the petitioner that her husband was residing with his son Kumaravel, there is no evidence to show that the said Kumaravel was residing at Chennai. It is not in dispute that Ramasubbu died in Chennai and burial had also taken place at Chennai and that the said Ramasubbu, before his death, embraced Christianity. The petitioner in the midst of her argument drew the attention of this Court to the judgments passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) Nos.13584 of 2012 and 3680 of 2013, but however, on perusal of those judgments, it is obvious that it has not been mentioned therein that the petitioner herein alone would be entitled to family pension and that the case of the petitioner was directed to be considered on merits. In W.P.(MD) No.3680 of 2013, this Court directed the respondent therein to pass a speaking order after conducting thorough enquiry, whereas this Court, in W.P.(MD) No.13584 of 2012 directed the 2^nd respondent therein to send the proposal to the 3^rd respondent therein within three weeks for passing appropriate orders thereon within four weeks thereafter. It is seen that the 4^th respondent herein was not a party to the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.13584 of 2012 and it is not known as to whether any averment was brought to the attention of this Court at that time with regard to Jeyalakshmi, as admittedly Jeyalakshmi filed W.P.(MD) No.3680 of 2013 after disposal of W.P.(MD) No.13584 of 2012.

¶28

A cursory look at the order of the District Collector is very clear that there is existence of dispute between the petitioner and Jeyalakshmi. The 2^nd respondent has already passed an order granting 50% of the pension to the petitioner, pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.13584 of 2012 dated 27.06.2014, which is evident from the counter of the 1^st respondent and the respondents cannot grant the entire pension to one person without ascertaining the factual position, as the same has got to be established before the appropriate forum, namely Civil Court. 9. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶29

i) The petitioner is at liberty to file a civil suit to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ establish her legal heirship and also her relationship with her husband late Ramasubbu till the date of his demise;

¶30

¶31

ii) In the event of the petitioner filing any civil suit, the same shall be tried by the appropriate Court in accordance with law without reference to the issue of limitation, as the period of pendency of litigations before this Court has to be necessarily excluded and appropriate orders be passed thereon within a period of six months from the date of presentation of the suit without adjourning the matter beyond one week at any point of time and the 4^th respondent / Jeyalakshmi should be added as a party in it;

¶32

iii) It is needless to say that the respondents shall continue to pay 50% of the pension to the petitioner till the issue is resolved in one way or the other. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶35

/True Copy/

¶36

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶37

To:

¶38

The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶39

The Accountant General (A&E), 341, Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶40

The Tahsildar,

¶41

Tambaram,

¶42

Chennai.

¶43

+1cc to M/s. P.GUNASEKARAN Advocate in SR. No.8480 AR/

¶44

JS/RSK/SAR.3/28.02.2017/4P-5C

¶45

W.P.(MD) No.18304 of 2015

¶46

1/2 13/02/2017

¶47

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

A.Rajeswari, v. the Disrtict Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A.Rajeswari, v. the Disrtict Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Director Vs Lakshmi

G. Subramani Reddy Vs M.A. Malick

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs E.Jayakumar

S.T. Rengarajan Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

M.Roselet, Vs the Managing Director

M/S Murugan and Co., Vs the Appellate Deputy