Allowed

K.Krishnaveni v. Tamil Nadu State Transport

Madras HC14 Mar 2018WP(MD)/2718/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking payment of pension benefits and family pension with arrears for her late husband, an ex-serviceman and retired Transport Corporation driver, who was denied dual pension wrongly.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to look into the matter, quantify pension payable to the petitioner, settle arrears, and disburse the same within twelve weeks.

K.Krishnaveni Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.03.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.2718 of 2018

K.Krishnaveni

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. 2.Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust, rep. by its Administrator, Thiruvalluvar House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 2. 3.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Karaikudi Division, rep. by its Managing Director, Maruthupathi, Managiri Road, Karaikudi – 630 307. 4.The Accountant General Office of the Principal Accountant General, (Accounts and Entitlements) Tamil Nadu, No.361, Anna salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant payment of pension benefits to the petitioner's husband till his life time and family pension to the petitioner with arrears and interest by considering the petitioner's representation dated 21.10.2016

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Narayanan For Respondents : Mr.D.Sivaraman for R1 and R3 Mr.P.Gunasekaran for R4 Mr.A.P.Muthupandian for R2 ***

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

The petitioner's husband in an Ex-serviceman. After his retirement from Army, he worked as Driver in the first respondent Transport Corporation. He retired from service on 30.04.2007. Thereafter, he passed away on 17.03.2011. Since the petitioner's husband was both an Ex-serviceman as well as a retired employee of the first respondent corporation, the petitioner herein is entitled to receive duel family pension. Acting on a misconception, the respondents have withheld the family pension payable to the petitioner from the transport corporation. This is clearly incorrect. The specific stand of the petitioner is that even during the life time of her husband, he did not get any pension from the transport corporation.

¶16

2.The respondents are directed to look into the matter and quantify the pension payable to the petitioner to settle with arrears and disburse the same within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

3.This writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

¶20

The Accountant General

¶21

Office of the Principal Accountant General, (Accounts and Entitlements) Tamil Nadu, No.361, Anna salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶22

+1CC to Mr.R.Narayanan, Advocate, SR.No. 55224 +1CC to Mr.P.Gunasekaran, Advocate, SR.No. 55513 +1CC to Mr.D.Sivaraman, Advocate, SR.No. 55519

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.2718 of 2018 14.03.2018

¶24

skn

¶25

AM/RSK/SAR 4/19.03.2018/2P/5C

¶26

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

K.Krishnaveni v. Tamil Nadu State Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Krishnaveni v. Tamil Nadu State Transport

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

M.Muthumanoharan, Vs the Deputy Inspector General

Santhanam Vs the Joint Registrar of Co. Op.

Dr.S.N.Mohan Vs the Secretary to Government

Andrew Chandrakumar, Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

Arul Thai Suganthi Vs District Educational Officer

S.Ramasundaramani Vs the Principal Secretary