A widow sought writ relief to restore her family pension after the death of her second husband, arguing the son's pension had expired. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's dismissal, ruling remarriage extinguished her right and the delay was fatal.
Writ petition dismissed. Original order of the Tribunal allowed.
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.
W.P.No.12494 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 08.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
THE HONOURABLE R.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.P.No.12494 of 2019
Mumtaz Begam
... Petitioner
Vs.
Page 1 of 8
W.P.No.12494 of 2019
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order made in O.A.No.1239/2013 dated 12.12.2014 to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 4 to restore the family pension to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.R.Jasmine padma For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Ramkumar for Respondents 1 to 4
ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)
This Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the
order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1239/2013 dated 12.12.2014, wherein, the claim of the petitioner to restore the family pension was rejected.
The petitioner is a widow of late M.Yusuf Khan, who was working as a Khalasi in the Mechanical Department of Madurai Division, Southern Railway and during their wedlock, a son namely Y.Anwar Khan born to them. Subsequently, her husband died in
Page 2 of 8
W.P.No.12494 of 2019
harness on 09.08.1973 and after his demise, she had received the family pension. In such circumstances, the petitioner re-married one Kamal Batcha on 11.11.1981 and hence, she requested the respondents to stop the family pension to her and to grant family pension to her son Y.Anwar Khan and the same was sanctioned till he attained the age of twenty five years.
2.1. The petitioner's second husband also died on 16.01.2004.
Thereafter, the petitioner requested the respondents to restore the family pension, arising out of her wedlock with Yusuf Khan., however it was not considered by them. Hence, the petitioner had filed O.A.No.1239/2013 before Tribunal for restoration of the family pension, But the Tribunal has dismissed the application, vide order dated 12.12.2014. Against which the present writ petition has been filed.
counsel for the respondents. Also, we have perused the materials on record.
Page 3 of 8
W.P.No.12494 of 2019
the petitioner and after hearing both sides and upon perusing the documents and relevant rules, has dismissed the application holding
Page 4 of 8
W.P.No.12494 of 2019
that the death of Kamal Batcha, i.e. the second husband, cannot give a fresh right to the petitioner to claim family pension, since the right of claiming family pension was ceased on the date of her re-marriage. Further, the Tribunal has relied upon the Railway Board's letter No.2011/F(E)III/1(1)9 dated 23.09.2013, wherein, at Clause 6(1), it is clearly stated that the family pension is payable in the case of a widow or widower up to the date of death or re-marriage, which ever is earlier. Admittedly, the family pension was granted to the petitioner up to the date of her re-marriage and thereafter, it was granted to his son, till he had attained the age of 25 years. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made an attempt to convince this Court that the petitioner is entitled for restoration of pension, even after the death of her second husband, since, the family pension granted to his son was stopped after he attained the age of 25 years. But we are not accepted the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, even, on humanitarian ground also. If such claim is entertained, it will open the flood gates of litigations, who are ineligible for the above said scheme and rules.
Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12494 of 2019
(D.K.K., J.) (P.B.B., J.)
08.09.2023
Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No mst
Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12494 of 2019
To
Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12494 of 2019
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J. AND P.B.BALAJI, J. mst
W.P.No.12494 of 2019
08.09.2023
Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a widow is entitled to restoration of family pension after the death of her second husband, given that the right ceased upon her remarriage to the first husband's family.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's order dismissing the petition for restoration of family pension due to a nine-year delay in filing.
Mumtaz Begam
Union of India, Rep. by the General Manager, Southern Railway
D. KRISHNAKUMAR
P. B. BALAJI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
