Partly allowed¶36

The Secretary to Govt., v. a.Sakunthala

Madras HC17 Apr 2026WA(MD)/89/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

family pension; widow pension; Tirunelveli Market Committee watchman; G.O.Ms.No.1078 Agri Department 01.06.1977; DCRG; pension scheme admission opt-in; employee died 10.09.1977 before admission; delayed approach to writ court 2014; arrears cut-off 01.01.2011; laches/stale claim; mandamus; Accountant General recommendation; W.A(MD) No.89 of 2022; C.M.P.(MD)No.959 of 2022; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; writ appeal partly allowed; Clause 15 Letters Patent.

What did the court decide?

Family pension arrears payable to the writ petitioner with effect from 01.01.2011 onwards, to be settled within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; monthly pension to continue to be paid regularly. ¶36

The Secretary to Govt., Vs a.Sakunthala — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the Division Bench needs to reverse the order of the learned Single Judge allowing family pension to the writ petitioner. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

With the aforesaid modifications (limitation of arrears to 01.01.2011 onwards and eight-week settlement timeline), the Writ Appeal stands partly allowed; no costs awarded.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Accepting the point urged by the learned Additional Government Pleader, relief to the writ petitioner is confined to effect from 01.01.2011 onwards; since she came to the writ Court only in 2014, directing the Government to pay arrears from 1979 would not be in order.

¶35

Key takeaways

The arrears payable to the writ petitioner shall be settled within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.ratio¶35
The writ petitioner will be continued to be paid her monthly pension regularly.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (Madurai Bench, Madras High Court) by the Government and Tirunelveli Market Committee against a Single Judge's mandamus directing payment of family pension to the widow of a Market Committee watchman who died on 10.09.1977 before seeking admission to the pension scheme sanctioned by G.O.Ms.No.1078, Agri Department dated 01.06.1977. The Division Bench did not reverse the substantive relief (the employer and the Accountant General had recommended her case, and similarly placed persons had received the benefit) but, accepting the Additional Government Pleader's plea that the petitioner approached the writ Court only in 2014, confined arrears to effect from 01.01.2011 onwards, ordered settlement of arrears within eight weeks, and directed continuance of regular monthly pension. Appeal partly allowed; no costs.

¶1

W.A(MD) No.89 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Date : 17.04.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶6

W.A(MD) No.89 of 2022 & C.M.P.(MD)No.959 of 2022

¶7

1.The Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department, Fort St.George,

¶8

Chennai-9.

¶9

2.The Director of Agriculture Marketing, Chennai-40.

¶10

3.The Secretary, Tirunelveli Market Committee, Tirunelveli District. ... Appellants / Respondents

¶11

Vs.

¶12

A.Sakunthala ... Respondent / petitioner

¶13

1/5

¶14

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

¶15

W.A(MD) No.89 of 2022

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying this Court to set aside the order dated 16.11.2021 made in W.P. (MD)No.8892 of 2018 on the file of this Court and allow this appeal.

¶17

For Appellants : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh Additional Government Pleader

¶18

For Respondent : Mr.H.Arumugam

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶21

The Government has filed this writ appeal challenging the order

¶22

dated 16.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P. (MD)No. 8892 of 2018 filed by the respondent herein.

¶23

The writ petitioner's husband Srinivasan was appointed as

¶24

Watchmen in Tirunelveli Market Committee on 24.12.1971. He was subsequently made permanent also. When he was in service, G.O.Ms.No.1078, Agri Department dated 01.06.1977 was issued sanctioning pension, DCRG and other benefits subject to the employee

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

W.A(MD) No.89 of 2022

¶28

seeking admission in the said scheme. Few other conditions were also stipulated for conferring the benefit under the scheme. Unfortunately, Srinivasan passed away on 10.09.1977 before he could seek admission into the scheme. For similarly placed individuals, the benefit of the scheme was given, For reasons that are not quite clear, the writ petitioner was denied the benefit of the scheme. Interestingly, the employer as well as the office of the Accountant General recommended her case. Since the Government did not act on those recommendations, W.P.(MD)No.889 of 2018 came to be filed. The learned single judge allowed the writ petition in the following terms:-

¶29

“13. The respondents do not deny the factum of employment of the petitioner's husband and the only defence put forth to reject the request for family pension on merits is that there was no application for admittance of the employee into the Pension Scheme.

¶30

The Mandamus, as sought for, is issued. There is a direction to R1 to compute the pension to which the petitioner is entitled, bearing in mind the period of services put in by her husband and to pay over the arrears, within a period of four weeks from today. Timely payments shall be effected thereafter. The payment of ex-gratia shall cease as on 31.12.2020.”

¶31

3/5

¶32

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

¶33

W.A(MD) No.89 of 2022

¶34

3.What had weighed with the single Judge was that relief was granted in the case of similarly placed individuals. The question that calls for consideration is whether we need to reverse the order of the learned single Judge.

¶35

4.One point urged by the learned Additional Government Pleader appeals to us. The writ petitioner moved the writ Court only in the year 2014. Therefore, the writ petitioner can be granted relief with effect from 01.01.2011 onwards. Since the petitioner came to the writ Court only in 2014, directing the Government to pay arrears from 1979 may not be in order. The arrears payable to the writ petitioner shall be settled within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitioner will be continued to be paid her monthly pension regularly.

¶36