The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking family pension for the petitioner, holding that her deceased husband was deemed to have resigned and did not meet service requirements, following precedents on pension eligibility.
Writ petition dismissed; no costs awarded.
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 : 01.11.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
W.P.No.4592 of 2011
Parvathi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Deputy Director of Health Services,
Dharapuram.
2. The Accountant General (A & G),
Tamil Nadu, Chennai - 18. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the
2nd respondent to pay family pension to the petitioner herein.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Wesley Isaac
For Respondents : Mr.B.Anand, G.A., for R1
Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, for R2
O R D E R
The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to pay family pension to
the petitioner herein.
and ceased to be in Government Service with effect from 05.03.1964. It is further stated that after expiry of the petitioner's husband, she applied for family pension. The proposal was returned back on the ground that as per G.O.Ms.No.748, dated 26.05.1979, the family of the deceased will be eligible for Family Pension provided, the Government servant retired from service or died while in service. In the instant case, as the above proposal did not satisfy any one of the conditions of the said G.O., the family pension is not admissible.
"10. In view of the settled legal position and the issue having been crystallized through the decision in Jacob's case, firstly, this Court is inclined to conclude that Rule-43(2) of the T.N. Pension Rules does not give any room at all to infer that the qualifying service to get pension is reduced to 10 years, or, in other words, that the petitioner has become eligible to family pension. Secondly, the petitioner is guilty of laches for making the claim with a huge delay of 35 years. Thirdly, even if the petitioner's case is taken on merits, in view of the fact that her husband himself had not put in 20 years of qualifying service so as to claim pension, no good right flow to the petitioner to seek for family pension. Fourthly, exactly, on the very issue, a learned Judge of this Court, while disposing of W.P. MD NO.284 of 2011 vide order dated 25.04.2012, categorically held thus:
" The petitioner contends that if the minimum service for entitlement to retiring pension was 20 years and not 10 years, Rule 43(2) would not have stated qualifying service of not less than 10 years. He contended that as Rule 43(2) of the TNP Rules [Rule 49(2)(b) of the CCSP Rules refers to not less than 10 years- service- any government servant who has put in service of 10 years or more is entitled to retiring pension. The said contention is misconceived. As stated earlier, the said Rule does not relate to entitlement of pension nor does it prescribe the conditions for eligibility, but only provides how the amount of pension should be calculated in cases where the retiring government servant is entitled to pension under Chapter V of the Pension Rules. The said Rule regulates the amount of pension not only in case of retiring pension, but in case of all classes of pension. Under Chapter V, in certain situations, a government servant may be eligible for pension even where the service is less than ten years. Rules 32, 36 and 38 of the TNP Rules [Rules 35, 38 and 39 of the CCSP Rules] do not prescribe any minimum service for being entitled to pension, where the cessation of service is on account of superannuation, or on account of bodily or mental infirmity or on account of abolition of his post. When Rule 43(2) of the TNP Rules [Rule 49(2)(b) of the CCSP Rules] refers to payment of pension to a person who has a qualifying service of not less than 10 years, it does not mean that the minimum period of service prescribed for retirement pension is reduced to 10 years or that government servants who are dismissed/removed/ compulsorily retired by way of punishment, or those who voluntarily retire before reaching the age of superannuation with less than 20 years of qualifying service, become entitled to pension. Rule 43(2) of the TNP Rules [Rule 49(2)(b) of the CCSP Rules], as noticed earlier, comes into play only when the government servant is entitled to any of the classes of pension enumerated under Chapter V of the Pension Rules. Therefore, when Rule 43 (2) of the TNP Rules [or Rule 49(2)(b) of the CCSP Rules] dealing with the quantum of pension refers to a government servant
retiring in accordance with the said Rules after completing qualifying service of not less than 10 years, it does not mean that pension is payable to persons who have not completed the required minimum number of years (20 years) of service or to persons who have forfeited their service on dismissal/removal from service. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to pension."
In the light of above discussion, this Court hardly finds any good reason to entertain the prayer of the writ petitioner.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to family pension when her husband died after deeming resignation and without completing the required years of service.
Whether Rule 43(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules reduces the qualifying service for pension from 20 years to 10 years.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
C. Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining Industries EstateFollowed¶14
C.Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining Indus. Est. and other reported in AIR 2009 SC 264 · Who else cites this
W.P. MD NO.284 of 2011Followed¶15
W.P.No.29210 of 2010Referred¶14
W.P.No.29270 of 2010Referred¶12
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Parvathi
Deputy Director of Health Services, Dharapuram
Accountant General (A & G), Tamil Nadu, Chennai
K. Kalyanasundaram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
