W.P(MD)No.8121 of 2013 Tmt.Muniammal alias Punitha ...Petitioner .vs.
1.The Senior Accounts Officer/Legal Cell Office of the Principal Accountant General, (Accounts and Entitlements) Tamil Nadu, No.361, Anna Salai, Chennai ? 600 018.
2.The Treasury Officer, Madurai District Treasury, Madurai.
3.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kilpauk, Chennai- 600 010.
4.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Sivagangai-630 560.
5.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Sivagangai-630 560.
6.V.Pappa ....Respondents.
Prayer in W.P(MD)No.4175 of 2011: Writ Petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to pay the family pension payable to the Petitioner as the Widow of Late S.Vijayapandian, a retired Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies w.e.f.11.4.2010 within the time frame fixed by this Court.
Prayer in W.P(MD)No.8121 of 2013: Writ Petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned notice in Ref.Pr.AG(A&E)/Legal Cell/W.P(MD)No.4175/2011, dated 15.4.2013 issued by the first respondent and to quash the same and consequently to direct the first respondent to continue to pay the pensionary benefits to the Petitioner based on the nomination made by her late husband S.Vijayapandian.
The Prayer in the Writ Petition runs as follows: This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to pay family pension payable to the Petitioner as the Widow of Late S.Vijayapandian, a retired Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies w.e.f.11.4.2010 within the time frame fixed by this Court.
2.According to the Petitioner, one Vijayapandian, who after having been in Government service, retired as Sub-Registrar on 12.6.1967. It is also claimed by her that the said Vijayapandian had deserted her in the year 1973. The Petitioner had taken several proceedings for maintenance against Vijayapandian. The last of such proceedings in O.S.No.18 of 2007, on the file of Family Court, Madurai seeking a maintenance against the said Vijayapandian. In the said suit, Vijayapandian filed a written statement admitting the marriage, but claimed that the marriage between them has been dissolved by a customary divorce and therefore, he is not bound to pay any maintenance to the Petitioner. The said plea of Vijayapandian was rejected by the Family Court and the Family Court by its Judgement and decree, dated 17.10.2001 held that the alleged customary divorce has not been established and directed the said Vijayapandian to pay a sum of Rs.1000/-p.m towards maintenance from 27.9.1986. Aggrieved by the said judgement and decree, the said Vijayapandian filed A.S.No.32 of 2002 in this Court and the Petitioner has also filed a cross-objection No.25 of 2007. This Court by its judgement and decree, dated 27.4.2009, dismissed the appeal and while allowing the cross-objection in part, enhanced the maintenance to Rs.1500/-p.m..The said Vijayapandian died on 11.4.2010. Thereafter, the Petitioner had been seeking payment of family pension from the respondents. Since her representation, dated 22.3.2011 did not evoke any positive response, the Petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition.
3.Upon service of notice in W.P(MD)No.4175 of2011, the fourth respondent namely, the Principal Accountant General passed an order stopping the family pension that was paid to one Muniammal @ Punitha, namely the sixth respondent in W.P(MD)No.4175 of 2011. The said order is challenged by the said Muniammal in W.P(MD)No.8121 of 2013.
4.I have heard the submissions of Mrs.Jessie Jeeva Priya, learned counsel for the Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.4175 of 2011 and Mr.P.Gunasekaran, the fourth respondent in W.P(MD)No.4175 of 2011 and first respondent in W.P(MD)No.8121 of 2013,Mr.J.Jeyakumaran for the 6th respondent in W.P(MD)No.4175 of 2011 and Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.8121 of 2013 and the Government Advocate appearing for other official respondents.
5.Rule 49 of the Pension Rules provides for family pension and sub-Rule 13(b) defines the family and the same runs as follows:
''Family in relation to a Government servant means: (1)(a) wife in the case of a male Government servant and husband in the case of a female Government servant.
The other parts of the definition are not necessary for the purpose of this case.
6.Mr.J.Jeyakumaran, learned counsel for the Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.8121 of 2013 would vehemently contend that the marriage of Vijayapandian and petitioner in W.P(MD)No.4175 of 2011 was never consummated and they never lived as husband and wife. The findings regarding the customary divorce rendered in a proceedings relating to maintenance cannot confer any right on the Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.4175 of 2011 for family pension on the ground that she is the wife of Vijayapandian. He would also further contend that the Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.8121 of 2013 has been nominated for the purpose of gratuity and the said nomination would enable her to draw the family pension also.
7.I am unable to countenance the said submissions of the learned counsel in view of the following facts:
8.The marriage between the Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.4175 of 2011 and the said Vijayapandian is admitted. The only defense to the claim of maintenance made by the Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.4175 of 2011 by Vijayapandian was that there was a customary divorce. In the proceedings before the Family Court, the said customary divorce has not been proved. This Court has also confirmed the said finding. Therefore the marriage between Vijayapandian and Tmt V.Pappa(Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.4175 of 2011) was subsisting till the death of Vijayapandian.
9.It is admitted that Vijayapandian had married one Muniammal, the Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.8121 of 2013 as a second wife claiming that a customary divorce had taken place. Therefore, at best, Muniammal wold be described as second wife of Vijayapandian. She does not have any right either under Hindu Succession Act or under the Pension Rules to the estate of Vijayapandian. Therefore, the Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.4175 of 2011 being the legally wedded wife of Vijayapandian will be entitled to family pension. As such there will be a direction to the authorities concerned to sanction the family pension to the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.4175 of 2011 as per Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.
10.The Official respondents shall pass orders sanctioning pension to the Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.4175 of 2011 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11.With the above direction, W.P(MD)No.4175 of 2011 is allowed. No costs.
W.P(MD)No.8121 of 2013
12.Insofar as W.P(MD)No.8121 of 2013 is concerned, the pension that has been paid to the Petitioner namely Muniammal @ Punitha was directed to be stopped in view of the claim made by the Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.4175 of 2011. Since I have held the Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.4175 of 2011 alone is entitled to family pension. This Writ Petition fails and the same stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. No costs.
To
1.The Accountant General, A & E Tamil Nadu, Anna Salai, Chennai ? 600 018.
2.The Senior Accounts Officer/Legal Cell Office of the Principal Accountant General, (Accounts and Entitlements) Tamil Nadu, No.361, Anna Salai, Chennai ? 600 018.
3.The Treasury Officer, Madurai District Treasury, Madurai.
4.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kilpauk, Chennai- 600 010.
5.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Sivagangai-630 560.
6.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Sivagangai-630 560..