Allowed

V.K.Ambujam v. The Chairman

Madras HC8 Apr 2019WP/8800/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking quashing of an order rejecting a family pension claim. The High Court quashed the rejection order, directed the respondents to conduct a personal enquiry regarding the marriage, and granted family pension benefits within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; direction to conduct personal enquiry and grant family pension within 12 weeks.

V.K.Ambujam Vs The Chairman — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.04.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.8800 of 2018 and WMP.No.10671 of 2018

¶6

V.K.Ambujam ...Petitioner
Vs
1. The Chairman,
TANGEDCO,
Tamil Nadu Generator Distribution
Company Ltd,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Tamil Nadu Generator Distribution
Company Ltd,
Chennai Development Circle,
A-10, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Industrial Nagar,
Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
3. The Chief Internal Audit Officer (Pension),
Audit Branch,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2. ...Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ or order or orders or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to his proceedings in letter No.001063/SE/CDC/Nir.Me./A.Section dated 06.09.2017 and the 3rd respondent in letter No.001864/44/F.5/F.53/2018 dated 2301.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to grant and pay Family Pension and all other monetary benefits to the petitioner in view of the death of her husband Late K.P.Prabhakaran (PPO No.24424).

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Arul Murugan

¶9

For Respondents : Mr.P.R.Dhilip Kumar Standing Counsel for EB

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to quash the rejection order rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for grant of family pension.

¶13

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that, the husband of the writ petitioner Late Shri.K.P.Prabhakaran was employed as Foreman in the respondent, Tamil Nadu Generator Distribution Company Ltd and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.1997. The husband of the writ petitioner was receiving pension till the date of his death on 08.04.2015. After the demise of the husband of the writ petitioner, she made a representation to the 3rd respondent on 26.09.2016 to sanction the family pension and other benefits.

¶14

The writ petitioner has enclosed the death certificate as well as the legal heir certificate. The respondents had not considered the claim of the writ petitioner on the ground that, the deceased employee had not submitted Form-III stating the writ petitioner as his wife and therefore the writ petitioner has not been nominated by the deceased employee. Citing this reason, the claim of the writ petitioner for grant of family pension is not considered.

¶15

It is contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that there is no counter claim in respect of the family pension. This apart, the writ petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee and she submitted the death certificate and legal heir certificate to the Competent Authorities. In the absence of any counter claim and the writ petitioner has produced all the relevant certificates, the wife alone is entitled to get family pension as per the Family Pension Rules. Thus, the name of the writ petitioner has not nominated in the service register by the deceased employee cannot be a ground to deny the family pension under the Family Pension Rules.

¶16

The reasons for the omission is not known to the writ petitioner. The same would have been occurred inadvertently or by way of an omission on the part of the husband of the writ petitioner. However, the right of the writ petitioner for family pension under the Family Pension Rules cannot be denied. The writ petitioner has established that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee by producing necessary death certificate and legal heir certificate. If at all the respondents having any doubt in respect of the legality of the marriage, they are at liberty to conduct an enquiry. However,

¶17

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

¶18

the benefit of family pension cannot be denied.

¶19

This being the factum, the respondents are bound to conduct personal enquiry, verifying the documents produced by the writ petitioner for grant of family pension and based on the enquiry, decision shall be taken to consider the case of the writ petitioner for grant of family pension in accordance with the Rules in force. The said exercise of conducting an enquiry and passing the revised order is to be done by the 2^nd respondent, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the impugned order already passed by the 2^nd respondent in proceedings No.001063/SE/CDC/Nir.Me./A.Section dated 06.09.2017, stands quashed.

¶20

Writ petition stands allowed. No Costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
Pkn
To
1. The Chairman,
TANGEDCO,
Tamil Nadu Generator Distribution
Company Ltd,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Tamil Nadu Generator Distribution
Company Ltd,
Chennai Development Circle,
A-10, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Industrial Nagar,
Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
3. The Chief Internal Audit Officer (Pension),
Audit Branch,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.
+1 CC to Mr.G.Arul Murugan, Advocate sr 33947
+1 CC to Mr.P.R.Dhilip Kumar, Advocate sr 34415.
W.P.No.8800 of 2018
BR(CO)
SP(29/04/2019)

¶21

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

V.K.Ambujam v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.K.Ambujam v. The Chairman

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

A.Premanand Vs Metropolitan Transport corporation (Chennai)Ltd

S.Jayakumar, Vs Chief Internal Audit Officer

C.Robert Vincent Vs The Chairman cum Managing

Dr.T.Sudha, Vs The Principal Secretary

S.Tulasi Ammal, Vs The Principal Secretary /

N.Jayaraman, Vs The Director of Horticulture