Dismissed

Nagalakshmi v. The Special Tahsildar

Madras HC6 Dec 2021WP/18406/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking to include the petitioner in the service register as the wife for pension benefits. The Court held that during the pensioner's lifetime, the wife cannot claim family pension; such disputes regarding marital status must be resolved by a competent Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Preliminary prayer to include wife's name in service register for pension is not granted; liberty to approach Civil Court granted.

Nagalakshmi Vs The Special Tahsildar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.18406 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

Nagalakshmi

...Petitioner

1.The Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare Department, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District.

¶10

2.The Treasury Officer, Sankarapuram Treasury Office, Sankarapuram, Villupuram District.

¶11

3.The Treasury Officer, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District.

¶12

4.The District Adi-Dravidar Welfare Officer, Collectorate, Villupuram.

¶13

5.The Principal Accountant General A&E, Teynampettai, Chennai – 18.

¶14

6.Purushothaman @ Paul Poras. ...Respondents

¶15

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 5 to enter the name of the petitioner as wife of 6 th respondent eligible to seek payment of pension and other benefits in the service register of 6 th respondent.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.R.M.P.Nasurullah for Mr.R.Gururaj For Respondents R1 to R4 : Mr.C.Sathish Government Advocate

¶17

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

¶18

R5 : Mrs.T.S.Selvarani R6 : Mrr.K.Govindaraj

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The writ on hand has been instituted to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to enter the name of the petitioner as wife of the 6^th respondent eligible to receive payment of pension.

¶21

2.The petitioner states that she is the legally wedded wife of one Mr.Purushothaman @ Paul Poras. The husband of the petitioner worked as Tutor-cum-Warden in Government Tribal Boys Hostel, Pudupattu, Villupuram and retired from service on 31.03.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation.

¶22

3.The learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent made a submission that Mr.Purushothaman @ Paul Poras is very much alive and he is receiving the monthly pension. While so, the petitioner cannot seek any prayer for grant of pension in her favour.

¶23

4.Regarding the claim of the writ petitioner, the fifth respondent filed a counter stating that as per the service records of Mr.Purushothaman @ Paul Poruse, one Smt.Pushparani was identified as his wife, besides, three sons by name Shri.P.Prabhu, Shri.P.Prasath and Shri.P.Prasanna were also included as family members. However, the petitioner also made a representation on 27.05.2014 claiming herself as wife of Mr.L.Paul Poruse including the copies of wedding invitation and ration card. As there was an ambiguity as to who is the legally wedded wife of Mr.Purushothaman @ Paul Poruse, a Single Pension Payment Order was issued without identifying the eligible beneficiary for family pension. Thus, the fifth respondent is paying the pension to the pensioner, who is a retired employee. In respect of the dispute between the petitioner and Smt.Pushparani, it is for the parties to establish their marriage before the competent Court of law or otherwise, the nomination given by the employee in the service register is to be followed.

¶24

5.This Court is of the considered opinion that during the lifetime of the pensioner, wife cannot claim family pension. No doubt the petitioner seeks inclusion of her name in the service records. When the name of Smt.Pushparani is already entered in the service register and if at all, the petitioner claims that

¶25

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

¶26

she is the first legally wedded wife of the employee, it is for her to approach the competent Civil Court of law to establish her rights in the manner known to law.

¶27

6.With this liberty, the writ petition stands disposed

¶28

of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

cse

¶34

¶35

1.The Special Tahsildar,

¶36

Adi-Dravidar Welfare Department, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District.

¶37

2.The Treasury Officer,

¶38

Sankarapuram Treasury Office, Sankarapuram, Villupuram District.

¶39

3.The Treasury Officer,

¶40

Kallakurichi, Villupuram District.

¶41

4.The District Adi-Dravidar Welfare Officer, Collectorate, Villupuram.

¶42

5.The Principal Accountant General A&E, Teynampettai, Chennai – 18.

¶43

W.P.No.18406 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶44

KG(CO)

¶45

SP(27/12/2021)

¶46

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

Nagalakshmi v. The Special Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagalakshmi v. The Special Tahsildar

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

P.Krishnan Vs The District Collector

A.Jayaranjani Vs The Medical Council of India

M.S.Guruprasadh Vs the General Manager-South Zone

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs P.Rajendran

M/S. Dcw Limited, Vs Union of India

P. Dhanabakkiam(Deceased) Vs the Chairman