Allowed

Maheswari.M v. The Principal Accountant General (a and E)

Madras HC4 Oct 2023WP(MD)/18046/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's family pension application. The Court held that the right to family pension is a continuing cause of action and remanded the matter for reconsideration under G.O.Ms.No.325 of 2011.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the 3rd respondent with a direction to pass orders within eight weeks.

Maheswari.M Vs The Principal Accountant… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.18046 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 04.10.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.18046 of 2023 and W.M.P(MD)No.15058 of 2023

¶7

M.Maheswari ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Principal Accountant General(A&E), No.361, Anna Salai, Chennei-18.

¶10

2.The Divisional Engineer, Divisional Engineer Office, National Highways Department, Dindigul.

¶11

3.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Dindigul. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order in Na.Ka.No. 07/2023/Njne/c, dated 07.06.2023 on the file of the 3^rd respondent and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vinoharan

¶14

1/5

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P(MD)No.18046 of 2023

¶17

For R1 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran For R2 & R3 : Mr.T.Villavan Kothai Additional Government Pleader

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 3^rd respondent herein wherein the request of the writ petitioner for grant of family pension has been rejected on the ground that it has been filed belatedly.

¶20

The writ petitioner’s father was working as a Mazdoor in Dindigul National Highways Sub Division and he passed away on 13.12.2005. The mother of the writ petitioner was also working as a Mazdoor in the same Sub Division and she passed away in the year 1988. The petitioner’s husband had passed away in the year 2016.

¶21

The petitioner had made an application seeking family pension on the ground that she is the widowed daughter of the pensioner. However, the said request has been rejected under the impugned order, dated 07.06.2023 on the ground that the said application has been belatedly filed.

¶22

2/5

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P(MD)No.18046 of 2023

¶25

Heard Mr.K.Vinoharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent and Mr.T.Villavan Kothai, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

¶26

The request for family pension is a continuing cause of action and therefore, the reason assigned in the impugned order for rejection of family pension is not legally sustainable. However, the writ petitioner is entitled to receive family pension either as a legal heir of the father or the mother, but she is not entitled to receive family pension through both of them. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has also brought to the notice of the Court that G.O.Ms.No.325, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 28.11.2011 wherein provisions have been made for grant of family pension to the widowed daughter of the pensioner, even if she had crossed the age of 25 years.

¶27

Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order impugned in the writ petition is not legally sustainable. Accordingly, the order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the 3^rd respondent herein to consider the request of the petitioner in the light of

¶28

3/5

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P(MD)No.18046 of 2023

¶31

G.O.Ms.No.325, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 28.11.2011 and

¶32

G.O.Ms.No.337 Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 14.11.2017. The

¶33

3^rd respondent is directed to pass orders within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

With the above said observations, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶35

04.10.2023

¶36

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶37

gbg

¶38

¶39

1.The Principal Accountant General(A&E), No.361, Anna Salai, Chennei-18.

¶40

2.The Divisional Engineer, Divisional Engineer Office, National Highways Department, Dindigul.

¶41

3.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Dindigul.

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

4/5

¶44

W.P(MD)No.18046 of 2023

¶45

R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.

¶46

gbg

¶47

Order made in W.P(MD)No.18046 of 2023

¶48

Dated: 04.10.2023

¶49

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Maheswari.M v. The Principal Accountant General (a and E)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maheswari.M v. The Principal Accountant General (a and E)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanthi.B Vs the Principal Secretary

Edwin.J Vs The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension)

Murugan.v Vs The Joint Commissioner of Labour

Kelvin .P Vs The Commissioner of School Education

Saravana Kumar .R Vs The Chief Engineer

N.R.Murugan Vs The District Collector