Dismissed

The Secretary v. G Malliga

Madras HC29 Jan 2026WA/4006/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Widow of a deceased transport corporation security guard was denied family pension; the writ court followed an earlier final order sanctioning dual family pension and directed sanction of pension. The writ appeal challenging this was dismissed, with implementation directed within two months.

What did the court decide?

Family pension direction to be implemented within two months from receipt of copy of order.

The Secretary Vs G Malliga — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WA No. 4006 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 29-01-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

¶8

WA No. 4006 of 2025

¶9

and CMP No. 32483 OF 2025

¶10

The Secretary

¶11

Department of Transport

¶12

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Chennai.

¶13

The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Villupuram Division Villupuram Division, Villupuram, Villupuram District.

..Appellant(s)

G Malliga

W/O.Late S.P.Govinda Swamy,

¶18

..Respondent(s)

¶19

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the Order passed by this Court made in W.P.No. 15967 of 2011 dated17-062025 and allow this Writ Appeal and thus render justice

¶20

For Appellants : Mr. T Chandrasekaran

¶21

Page1 of 7

¶22

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

¶23

WA No. 4006 of 2025

¶24

Judgment

¶25

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.Suresh Kumar J.)

¶26

This intra-court appeal has been directed against the order dated

¶27

17.06.2025 made in W.P.No.15967 of 2011.

¶28

The respondent/writ petitioner's husband viz.,Late S.P.Govindasamy served in the Indian Army till the year 1972 and thereafter, he joined the appellant Corporation as a Security Guard on 14.12.1972 and continued in the said post and he suddenly passed away on 06.07.1992. Therefore, totally about 20 years he had rendered service to the appellant Transport Corporation.

¶29

Initially, a family pension was sanctioned by the Army for the service rendered by the respondent’s husband, who served for army for 7 years. Thereafter, insofar as the entitlement to receive dual family pension from the present employer by the widow of the deceased like the present case is concerned, this Court has already passed an order in W.P.No.4117 of 2026 dated 07.09.2010, whereby the dual pension has been directed to be sanctioned.

¶30

When that being the position, when the respondent/writ petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased had approached the appellant Department to seek for sanctioning of the pension that was rejected by the first appellant herein on

¶31

Page2 of 7

¶32

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

¶33

WA No. 4006 of 2025

¶34

09.06.2011 by stating the following:

¶35

“ghh;itapy ; j';fsJ kDtpy;. j';fs ; fzth ; 06?07?1992 md;W ,we;Jtpl;ljhft[k;. Mdhy;’14?12?1992 Kjy;’gy;ytd; nghf;Ftuj;J fHfj;jpy;’ghJfhtyuhf gzpg[hpe;J tUtjhft[k; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,uz;L njjpfspYk;’Kuz;ghL cs;sJ/ nkYk; brd;id cah;ePjp kd;wk; ,uz;L Xa;t{jpak; tH';fFkhW tH';fpa jPh;g;gpd;’kPJ nghf;Ftuj;J fHf';fs; nky;’KiwaPL bra;Js;sJ vd;gija[k; bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;fpnwd;/@

¶36

Challenging the said order only, the said writ petition was filed.

¶37

The learned Writ Court, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for

¶38

both sides had stated that the order dated 07.09.2010 made in W.P.No.4117 of 2006 has been appealed by the Transport Corporation and the appeal is pending, in order to verify the same, the learned Judge had granted time to the appellants herein, who stood as the respondents before the Writ Court.

¶39

After the time was given, it has been brought to the notice of the Writ

¶40

Court that, no appeal had been filed by the Transport Corporation against the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.4117 of 2006 allowing the dual family pension payable to the deceased employees.

¶41

Page3 of 7

¶42

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

¶43

WA No. 4006 of 2025

¶44

This has been recorded by the learned Judge stating that the order passed by the Writ court dated 07.09.2010 made in W.P.No.4117 of 2006 has become final, as no appeal has been filed, the same has to be followed. Therefore, the learned Judge at paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the impugned order having followed the order dated 07.09.2010 made in W.P.No.4117 of 2006 had allowed the said writ petition through the impugned order directing the appellant Department to sanction family pension to the widow of the deceased, who was the writ petitioner.

¶45

Though as against the said order of the Writ Court, the present intracourt appeal has been directed, after hearing the learned learned Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants, we find that there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Writ Court, for the simple reason that the impugned order dated 09.06.2011 before the Writ Court has stated the only reason that there has been a discrepancy in the dates mentioned relating to the joining and demise of the employee concerned and also the reason that as against the order passed by the Writ Court for sanctioning of dual pension, appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation. The said reasons cannot now be improved by stating any other reason as has been projected by the learned Standing Counsel, who would submit that, out of the 20 years of service, which the deceased employee rendered for the Transport Corporation, he has got a qualifying service of only 9

¶46

Page4 of 7

¶47

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

¶48

WA No. 4006 of 2025

¶49

years and odd, which is less than the minimum qualifying service for pension and therefore, the widow of the deceased employee is not entitled to get the family pension.

¶50

This reason has never been projected by the Transport Corporation at any point of time and it has also not been reflected in the order impugned dated 09.06.2011 before the Writ Court and even, it has not been stated in the counter affidavit. Therefore, the case cannot now be improved before the Writ Appellate Court, as it is a settled proposition of law that once the order is passed and the same is tested before the Court of law, it cannot be improved by the subsequent counter affidavit or any other additional documents either before the Court at the first instance or before the Appellate Court as held in the Chief Election Commissioner Vs. Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr reported in 1978 AIR 851.

¶51

Such an attempt now made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant to improve the case beyond the reasons that has arisen in the order dated 09.06.2011 before the Writ Court cannot be accepted by this Court.

¶52

Moreover, it is a fact that dual pension order passed in W.P.No.4117

¶53

of 2006 dated 07.09.2010 has become final, as no appeal since has been filed, therefore, following the same only since the present order, which is impugned

¶54

Page5 of 7

¶55

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

¶56

WA No. 4006 of 2025

¶57

R.SURESH KUMAR J.

¶58

AND K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI J.

¶59

¶60

herein was passed by the Writ Court, we do not find any reason to interfere with

¶61

the same as absolutely there has been no reason to interfere with the said order.

¶62

As a result of which, this writ appeal is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶63

The direction given by the Writ court is to be implemented within a period of two(2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶64

(R.S.K.,J.) (K.G.T.,J.) 29-01-2026

¶65

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶66

¶67

WA No. 4006 of 2025

¶68

__________ Page6 of 7

¶69

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

¶70

WA No. 4006 of 2025

¶71

__________ Page7 of 7

¶72

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

The Secretary v. G Malliga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary v. G Malliga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Vs K Nagarajan

The Secretary to Government Vs N. Venkatesh

The Secretary to the Government Vs R. Madhusudhanan

The Secretary to Government Vs E. Suganthi

Government of Tamil Nadu Vs J Pandi

The Director of School Education Vs Renganathan