Allowed

T.Saradhamanidevi v. The Chief Educational Officer

Madras HC23 Sept 2021WP/20323/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, widow of a deceased Headmaster, filed a writ petition for family pension sanctioned from December 2014. Court directed respondents to scrutinize Form-7 and documents and pay arrears plus regular pension within 30 days, dismissing other relief.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to scrutinize papers and pay family pension arrears and regular pension within 30 days of receipt of order.

T.Saradhamanidevi Vs The Chief Educational… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

W.P.No.20323 of 2021

¶6

(Through Video Conferencing)

T.Saradhamanidevi

...Petitioner

The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Karaikkal, Puducherry.

¶11

The Accounts Officer, Directorate of Accounts & Treasuries, Puducherry.

¶12

The Accountant General, Office of the Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlements),

¶13

No.361, Anna Salai, Chennai. ...Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the Respondents herein to sanction the family pension to the petitioner from the month of December 2014 till the date and consequently direct the respondents to disburse family pension to the petitioner for the succeeding months without any delay.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ananthasekar

¶16

For Respondent : Mrs.DJearany, Government Advocate (Pondy) for R1 & R2 Mr.V.Vijay Shankar for R3

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner is the widow of pensioner who died on 26.11.2014. Despite the fact that the petitioner's husband died on 26.11.2014, till date, the family pension has not been sanctioned to the petitioner. The 2^nd respondent has directed the Pension Sanctioning Authority to submit Form-7 incorporating the name of the family members eligible for Family Pension along

¶19

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

¶20

with all other documents required to substantiate the claim for further necessary action.

¶21

2.Since there is no dispute that the petitioner is the legal heir of late K.Thandavamoorthy, who held to the post of Headmaster on the date of his retirement, the respondents are directed to scrutinize the papers and pay the Family Pension together with arrears within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the petitioner. Going forward, the respondents shall also credit the regular Family Pension amount to the petitioner as is being followed in the case of other pensioners.

¶22

3.This writ petition stands disposed of with the above

¶23

observations. No costs.

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

jas

¶27

¶28

The Chief Educational Officer,

¶29

Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Karaikkal, Puducherry.

¶30

The Accounts Officer, Directorate of Accounts & Treasuries, Puducherry.

¶31

The Accountant General,

¶32

Office of the Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlements),

¶33

No.361, Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶34

+1cc to Mr.T.Ananthasekar, Advocate, S.R.No.48937

¶35

+1cc to the Government Pleader, (Pondy) S.R.No.49150

¶36

+1cc to the Government Pleader,(TN) S.R.No.49463

¶37

W.P.No.20323 of 2021

¶38

GSM(CO) RGA(18/10/2021)

¶39

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

T.Saradhamanidevi v. The Chief Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Saradhamanidevi v. The Chief Educational Officer

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.Govindaraj Vs The Union of India

M.Asokan Vs Pandy

K.P.Tamilmaran Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Police

E.Saritha Vs The Managing Director

M.S.Selvaraj Vs Pandy

T.Elanchezhian, Vs The Deputy Inspector General