IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.02.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR W.P.No. 9254 of 2007 G.JEYAKANTHAN .. PETITIONER Vs THE DIST PROJECT NUTRITION OFFICER, THIRUVANNAMALAI THIRUVANNAMALAI DT .. RESPONDENT Prayer Original Application No. 7229 of 1999 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench to issue a direction to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.686/A/99 dt 12.10.99 and quash the same and direct the respondent to pay the Family Benefit Fund Amount to the petitioner on account of the death of his wife Tmt.Pankajam. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was transferred and numbered as Writ petition. For Petitioner .. Mr. P. Rajendran For Respondents .. Mr.S.Sivashanmugam, Government Advocate ORDER Original Application No. 7229 of 1999 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench to issue a direction to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.686/A/99 dt 12.10.99 and quash the same and direct the respondent to pay the Family Benefit Fund Amount to the petitioner on account of the death of his wife Tmt.Pankajam. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was transferred and numbered as Writ petition. 2. The dependant is aggrieved by the order impugned in the present writ petition. The wife of the petitioner Tmt. Pankajam was serving as a Community Nutrition Helper. While in service, it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is stated that she was suffering from Cancer and she was on Medical Leave from 01.10.1997 to 08.04.1998. She died on 09.04.1998. She was absent for more than 190 days on medical grounds. The petitioner claimed the benefits of Family Pension Fund that will accrue to the dependant and the Family members. This was rejected by the impugned order stating that the deceased employee was absent for more than 6 months before death and as per the Government Rules, the legal heirs are not entitled to the benefit under the said scheme. 3. The writ petition has been filed in the year 2007. No reply has been filed so far. The impugned order does not state any specific rule under which the claim is rejected. The reasons given are vague and bereft of details. Such an order, on the face of it cannot be sustained. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and dispose of the said claim on merits giving reasons and the specific rules for rejecting the claim. Such exercise shall be done by the respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is entitled to make a representation in this regard to the said authority along with the copy of this order. The writ petition stands allowed as stated above. No costs. sms Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To THE DIST PROJECT NUTRITION OFFICER, THIRUVANNAMALAI THIRUVANNAMALAI DT SJ(CO) SR/8.3.2010 W.P.No.9254 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/