Saturday, 28 November 2015

When family pension should not be refused to second wife of employee?

Furthermore, the legal heirship certificate was issued by the
Tahsildar, Karaikudi, stating that the petitioner is the second wife and she
is a widow due to the death of Thiru.Ganesan.  Further, the legal heirship
certificate shows that Akilandeswari is the daughter of the petitioner.  The
legal heriship certificate also shows that one Karthikeyan is the son born to
the first wife of Thiru.Ganesan.  The said Karthikeyan gave an affidavit that
he has no objection to give family pension to his step-mother, who is the
petitioner herein.

        There is also another letter issued by the Village Administrative
Officer, Tiruppathur Taluk that the petitioner is the second wife of the
deceased Ganesan and the marriage of the petitioner with the deceased Ganesan  
took place after the death of the first wife of Ganesan and that the
petitioner gave birth to Akilandeswari on 02.06.2008.

        In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the respondent
is not justified in refusing to pay family pension to the petitioner and the
minor daughter of the deceased Ganesan, as per the pension rules applicable

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED : 20.11.2015  

CORAM   
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN               

W.P(MD)No.17926 of 2015   

G.Pushpam                                                       ... Petitioner

Vs.

The Superintending Engineer,
TNEB, 
Sivaganga Distribution Circle,
Sivaganga.                                                      ... Respondent


        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the impugned order of the respondent dated 21.05.2015 in
f.vz;.03877/225/nkbgh/rpkpgt/rpt/cepm/epgp2/c1/nfh.th.nt/2015 and quash the
same and consequently directing the respondent to disburse the family pension
to the petitioner without insisting for production of certificate from
Tahsildar or Registrar or District Court as mentioned as condition precedent
in the impugned for grant of family pension.

        The petitioner has challenged the proceedings dated 21.05.2015 in
f.vz;.03877/225/nkbgh/rpkpgt/rpt/cepm/epgp2/c1/nfh.th.nt/2015 of the
respondent refusing to sanction family pension due to the death of her
husband Thiru.A.Ganesan, who was employed as a Junior Engineer Grade-I under   
the respondent.   Thiru.A.Ganesan died on 15.08.2012 while in service.

        2.According to the petitioner, she is the second wife of her deceased
husband Thiru.A.Ganesan.  The first wife of Thiru.A.Ganesan died on
10.07.2005.  Thereafter, Thiru.A.Ganesan married the petitioner on
15.07.2007.  The petitioner is none other than the daughter of the sister of
the deceased Ganesan.  After the marriage with Thiru.A.Ganesan, the
petitioner gave birth to one female child namely, Akilandeswari on
02.06.2008.  Thereafter, Thiru.A.Ganesan died on 15.08.2012.  In the said
circumstances, the petitioner claimed family pension, but the same was
declined by the impugned order.  It is useful to extract the following
passage from the impugned order:- Vernaculars omitted
      
        3.It is not in dispute that the first wife of the deceased Ganesan died
on 10.07.2005 and a death certificate to that effect is enclosed in the typed
set of papers.

        4.The Birth Certificate of Akilandeswari dated 02.07.2008 is also
enclosed in the typed set of papers.  As per the Birth Certificate issued by
the competent authority, the father of Akilandeswari is the deceased Ganesan
and the mother is the petitioner.  As per the Birth Certificate,
Akilandeswari was born on 02.06.2008.  The same was registered on 12.06.2008. 
As per the Birth Certificate, the place of birth of Akilandeswari is
Government Hospital at Trichy.

        5.In view of the aforesaid Birth Certificate, the respondent is not
justified in refusing to pay the family pension to the petitioner by stating
one reason or other.

        6.Furthermore, the legal heirship certificate was issued by the
Tahsildar, Karaikudi, stating that the petitioner is the second wife and she
is a widow due to the death of Thiru.Ganesan.  Further, the legal heirship
certificate shows that Akilandeswari is the daughter of the petitioner.  The
legal heriship certificate also shows that one Karthikeyan is the son born to
the first wife of Thiru.Ganesan.  The said Karthikeyan gave an affidavit that
he has no objection to give family pension to his step-mother, who is the
petitioner herein.

        7.There is also another letter issued by the Village Administrative
Officer, Tiruppathur Taluk that the petitioner is the second wife of the
deceased Ganesan and the marriage of the petitioner with the deceased Ganesan  
took place after the death of the first wife of Ganesan and that the
petitioner gave birth to Akilandeswari on 02.06.2008.

        8.In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the respondent
is not justified in refusing to pay family pension to the petitioner and the
minor daughter of the deceased Ganesan, as per the pension rules applicable
to TANGEDCO.   

        9.For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is quashed and the
respondent is directed to pay family pension to the petitioner, within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with
all arrears as per the rules.
        The writ petition is allowed accordingly.  No costs.

To

The Superintending Engineer,
TNEB, 
Sivaganga Distribution Circle,
Sivaganga.              
.

Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment