W.P(MD)No.19794/2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30.07.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD)No.19794 of 2014
V.Mariammal … Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman,
TANGEDCO,
Production-cum-Distribution,
144, Annasalai,
Chennai.
2.The Superintendent Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Cuddalur Distribution Circle,
Cuddalur.
3.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Viruthachalam Town,
Cuddalur District.
4.R.Ganagavalli … Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petitions under SectionArticle 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to
3 to stop the payment of death benefit of V.Rajendrakumar to the
fourth respondent till the final disposal of the criminal case in Cr.No.
309 of 2012 dated 13.05.2012 on the file of the Viruthachalam
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.19794/2014
Police Station by considering her representation dated 14.11.2014
within the period stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen
For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Dhayalan,
Government Advocate
For R4 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a
direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to stop the payment of death
benefit of Thiru.V.Rajendrakumar to the fourth respondent till the
final disposal of the criminal case in Cr.No.309 of 2012, dated
13.05.2012 on the file of the Viruthachalam Police Station by
considering her representation, dated 14.11.2014.
2.The writ petitioner states that her son
Thiru.V.Rajendrakumar was employed in the Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board and died while he was in service. He was employed as
Wireman in the office of the third respondent. The son of the writ
petitioner married the fourth respondent on 19.05.1999 and out of
2/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.19794/2014
their wedlock a son and a daughter born. The son of the writ
petitioner filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.68 of 2010 on the file of the
Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil for restitution of Conjugal right.
The petitioner states that the fourth respondent along with her
sister-in-law Rani, who was working in the Police Department,
conspired and made an attempt to kill her son. The Special Sub
Inspector of Police, Viruthachalam Police Station registered a case in
Cr.No.309 of 2012 on 13.05.2012 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., and
obtained the signature from the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner
sent complaints to the police officials and the authorities competent
had not taken any action. Thus, the writ petitioner is constrained to
move the present writ petition to stop the terminal and pensionary
benefits of her son Thiru.V.Rajendrakumar in favour of the fourth
respondent.
3. This Court is of the considered opinion that the deceased
employee was married to the fourth respondent, thus, the fourth
respondent admittedly is the wife of the deceased employee. As far
as the family pension is concerned, the same cannot be settled in
favour of any other person other than the spouse. The very consept
3/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.19794/2014
of the family pension is that the spouse of the deceased employee
alone is entitled to get the family pension and in respect of other
benefits the authorities competent are bound to go by the
nomination available in the Service Register of the employee
concerned. Thus, the authorities competent are bound to verify the
nomination as well as ascertain the legally wedded spouse and
accordingly, settle the pensionary benefits as well as the family
pension.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the
petitioner has no other source of livelihood and therefore, some
amount is to be settled in favour of the writ petitioner. This Court
cannot issue any such direction in violation of the pension rules.
However, if the petitioner is unable to maintain herself on account
of old age, she is at liberty to approach the competent authority
under the Senior Citizen Maintenance Act and appropriate petition
is to be filed setting out the facts and details before the
competent authority under the provisions of the Senior Citizen
Maintenance Act and in the event of submitting any such
4/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.19794/2014
application, the sons and daughters of the writ petitioner are bound
to maintain the writ petitioner with reference to the provisions of
the Act. This being the only remedy available to the writ petitioner.
This Court cannot stop the sanctioning and disbursement of
pensionary benefits and family pension to the spouse as per the
nominations and as per the pension rules in force. This being the
factum, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to initiate all
appropriate action for the settlement of family pension and arrears
of family pension in favour of the legally wedded wife of the
deceased employee and with reference to the nominations available
in the Service Register of the deceased employee.
5.With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed
of. No costs.
30.07.2019
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Am
5/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.19794/2014
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
Am
To
1.The Chairman,
TANGEDCO,
Production-cum-Distribution,
144, Annasalai,
Chennai.
2.The Superintendent Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Cuddalur Distribution Circle,
Cuddalur.
3.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Viruthachalam Town,
Cuddalur District.
W.P.(MD)No.19794 of 2014
30.07.2019
6/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
