The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings dated 11.12.2002 passed by the 2nd respondent and the consequential proceedings dated 26.06.2003 passed by the 1st respondent, and for a direction to the respondents to pay her the entire commutation of pension of her deceased husband, Lakshmanan.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband was working as wireman in Marakkanam Section, Villupuram Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Villupuram. While he was in service, he preferred an application for Voluntary Retirement with effect from 31.07.2002 and he was relieved on 31.07.2002 A.N. on Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
3. It is further stated by the petitioner that while in service, her husband gave an application to the 1st respondent on 17.07.2002 for commutation of his pension and to pay a part of it along with other terminal benefits. Three days after his retirement, the petitioner suddenly died in a road accident on 03.08.2002. The 1st respondent, after considering the application dated 17.07.2002, sanctioned the death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (hereinafter referred to as DCRG) of a sum of Rs.1,32,780/- to the petitioner vide Proceedings No.Ni.Ku.No.928/Ni.Pi.-3/Utha.2/Ko.0.No.79/2002-1, dated 27.09.2002. On the same day another order has been passed by the 1st respondent vide Proceedings No.Ni.Ku.No.928/Ni.Pi.-3/Utha.2/Ko.0.No.79/2002-5 sanctioning the monthly pension of Rs.3,053/- to the petitioner and vide Proceedings No.Ni.Ku.No.928/Ni.Pi.-3/Utha.2/Ko.0.No.79/2002-6 permitted to commute 40% of the pension and ordered payment of Rs.1,76,557/- to the petitioner, subject to authorization by the 2nd respondent. However, when the matter was placed before the 2nd respondent for authorization of the payment of pension, the 2nd respondent, by proceedings dated 11.12.2002 rejected the payment of commutation of pension on the ground that her husband died on 03.08.2002, whereas the commutation of pension was sanctioned on 27.09.2002 and he is not eligible for commutation of pension. Challenging the said order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has is before this court on the ground that her husband made a requisition to the 1st respondent for commutation of pension on 17.07.2002 and the same was considered by the respondent Board vide proceedings dated 27.02.2003. According to the petitioner, if there had been no application, the claim of commutation of pension would not have been sanctioned.
4. In the counter affidavit, respondents have stated that the petitioner's husband Lakshmanan was working as a wireman at Marakkanam Section, Villupuram Electricity Distribution Circle and while in service, he preferred an application to the first respondent for Voluntary Retirement Service with effect from 31.07.2002 and the same was considered by the 1st respondent and he was permitted to go on Voluntary Retirement Service with effect from 31.07.2002 A.N.
5. According to the respondents, after granting permission for voluntary retirement to the Board employee, the pension proposal booklets for retirement benefits are to be served to him; thereafter, the pension proposal booklets are to be filled up by the retired employee (Voluntary Retirement) duly attested by the Field Officers concerned and the same will be submitted to the 1st respondent. It is their case that in the case on hand, before sending pension proposal booklets to the petitioner's husband through the Assistant Executive Engineer concerned, the 1st respondent received a report that unfortunately, the petitioner's husband met with an accident on 01.08.2002 and died on 03.08.2002. The respondents would submit that the Family Pension Claim Booklets for terminal benefits in respect of the deceased employee were served to the legal heirs of the deceased on 12.09.2002 and the same was submitted by the legal heirs on 20.09.2002 for preparation of terminal benefits. While sanctioning the terminal benefits, the 1st respondent mistakenly had sanctioned the commutation of pension along with other terminal benefits and the same was forwarded to the 2nd respondent on 16.11.2002 for authorization. The 2nd respondent in her authorization letter, dated 11.12.2002 pointed out that the deceased employee is not eligible for commutation value, stating that the petitioner's husband expired on 03.08.2002, whereas the commutation value sanction has been accorded on 27.09.2002 by the first respondent by mistake, without noticing the death of the employee.
6. While that being so, the petitioner made a representation on 26.03.2003, requesting him to sanction the commutation of pension and surrender leave sanction. Thereafter, the first respondent sent a letter dated 11.04.2003 to the second respondent to reconsider the payment of commutation of pension of the petitioner by wrongly interpreting the Board Proceedings dated 27.02.2003 and further intimated that the petitioner's husband voluntarily retired on 31.07.2002 and died on 03.08.2002 and further the deceased employee has not submitted his application for commutation of pension. Therefore the commutation value sanction has not been accorded and the first respondent on 26.06.2003 has rejected the petitioner's claim for commutation of pension on the ground that there is no application for commutation of pension made by the deceased employee. Thereafter the second respondent also rejected the petitioner's claim on 04.08.2003. Challenging the above order of the second respondent dated 11.12.2002 for authorization of family pension and the orders passed by the first respondent on 26.06.2003 and 04.08.2003 rejecting the petitioner's claim for commutation of pension, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
7. It is specifically stated that the petitioner's husband has never made an application on 17.07.2002 for commutation of pension to the first respondent and the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner's husband gave an application on 17.07.2002 is denied as false one. Therefore, the petitioner's husband is not entitled for the commutation of pension in the absence of any application made by him. It is also stated in the Counter that the first respondent sanctioned the family pension, terminal benefits and by mistake also sanctioned the commutation value and the same was forwarded to the second respondent herein for authorization. The second respondent has declined the commutation of pension on the ground that the deceased employee did not apply for commutation of pension and therefore he is not eligible for the same. Therefore the respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
8. Heard Mr.Elangovan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
9. A circumspection of the facts would reveal that the petitioner was a Wireman working in the respondents Electricity Board and he opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and accordingly, he was relieved from the post on 31.07.2002. Thereafter he met with an accident on 01.08.2002 and died on 03.08.2002. It is seen that there was an application for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and also pension proposals have been taken up by the respondents and accordingly sanctioned the retirement benefits including the commutation of pension. It is specifically averred by the respondents that the first respondent has sanctioned the family pension terminal benefits. But, by mistake also sanctioned the commutation of pension.
10. It is also seen from the pleadings that there was an application made by the petitioner's husband on 17.07.2002 for commutation of his pension and thereafter the first respondent has sanctioned the terminal benefits, family pension and also the commutation of value. It is the strong contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was an application by the petitioner's husband on 17.07.2002, based on that application, the first respondent has sanctioned the commutation of pension and further without verifying the application, the order of the commutation of pension has been withdrawn by the respondents, contrary to the claim of the petitioner dated 17.07.2002. The said contention was strongly refuted by the counsel for the respondents stating that the said application was never made by the petitioner's husband and therefore the respondents passed the impugned order withdrawing the sanction of commutation of pension amount.
11. On analysis of the entire facts and circumstances, a question arises for consideration as to whether there was an application on 17.07.2002 by the petitioner's deceased husband for claim of the commutation of pension or not, and if so, the action of the first respondent in withdrawing the order of commutation of pension would be justified.
12. While examining the issue in question, I have gone through the documents annexed in the typed set of papers, wherein, it is seen that the application dated 17.07.2002 was made by the petitioner's husband to the 1st respondent through proper channel. However, the respondents have earlier sanctioned the commutation of pension. Later on, it was rejected at the stage of authorisation by the 2nd respondent on the ground that no such application was made by the deceased employee.
13. A perusal of the documents would show that commutation of pension was already granted to the petitioner. However, it has been stated that it was mistakenly sanctioned. In the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 11.04.2003, the petitioner's claim was recommended to the 2nd respondent. However, looking into the circumstances under which the petitioner's husband has made an application on 17.07.2002 to the 1st respondent, enclosing a copy of the wedding invitation of his daughter, seeking commutation of pension as the amount is required for his daughter's marriage, the immediate necessity of the commuted pension amount to the petitioner's husband is vivid. On scrutiny of the case on hand, it is evident that the petitioner's husband has made an application to the 1st respondent seeking commutation of pension and the said application has been considered by the 1st respondent and pension was sanctioned; but, rejecting the same at the stage of authorization by the 2nd respondent could not be justified, since, terminal benefits of the deceased employee cannot be denied for technical reasons.
14. In the light of the above discussion and on perusing the entire material records, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned proceedings of the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained and they are accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to re-consider the petitioner's claim based on the application dated 17.07.2002 and pass appropriate orders taking into account the overall circumstances and pay the petitioner the amount of commutation of pension of her deceased husband. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Writ Petition is allowed with the above direction.
krk/tsi To
1. The Superintendent Engineer, Villupuram Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Villupuram.
2. The Internal Audit Officer, Board Office Audit Branch, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002