IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.08.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.No.6462 of 2009 Mr.D.Pushpanathan ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary, Finance (Pension) Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Accountant General, Accounts and Entitlement, Tamil Nadu, 361, Anna Salai, Chennai – 18. 3. The Director, Directorate of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 6. 4. The District Educational Officer, Vellore District. Vellore. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the relevant records relating to the order of the first respondent in letter No.1747/D2/08-6 dated 11.12.2008 and quash the same as illegal and ultravires the rules grant suitable relaxation of the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules on the basis of the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.200 of 2000 on the file of District Munsif Court, Arakonam and consequently direct the second, third and fourth respondents to release the benefits. (Prayer amended as per order dt.12.7.2010 in MP No.1/10 in WP No.6462/2009) For Petitioner : Mr.M.Venkatakrishnan For Respondents 1,3&4: Mrs.Lita Srinivasan Government Advocate For Respondent – 2 : Mrs.T.S.Selvarani https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R The petitioner's son was employed in a private aided School as a Watchman. He died on 25.08.1998, while he was in service. The petitioner's son got married and however he did not have issues. The petitioner's daughter-in-law filed a suit in O.S.No.200 of 2000 before the District Munsif Court, Arakonam relating to the terminal benefits payable to her husband on his death. In the suit, the petitioner and the fourth respondent herein were shown as defendants. The suit was referred before the Lok Adalat for an amicable settlement. 2. Based on the settlement reached before the Lok Adalat, a compromise decree was passed by the District Munsif Court, Arakonam on 03.12.2004 in O.S.No.200 of 2000. The compromise decree is based on the settlement. The terms of the compromise decree area as follows:- "1/ ,we;j rhykd; njtnerDf;F 2k; gpjpthjpapd; mYtyfj;jpypUe;J tutpUf;Fk; Xa;t{jpa epYitj;bjhif kw;Wk; tU';fhy Xa;t{jpaj;bjhif Mfpa midj;ija[k; thjpna bgw;Wf;bfhs;s ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; 2/ nkw;go ,we;j rhykd; njtnerDf;F 2k; gpujpthjpapd; mYtyfj;jpypUe;J tutpUf;Fk; o/rp/Mh;/$p(gpuhtplz;l; gz;l;. </vy;/ kw;Wk; vg;/gp/vg; Mfpa midj;J bjhiffisa[k;) (DCRG, Provident fund, E.L. and FPF) Kjy; gpujpthjp g[c&;gehjd; bgw;Wf;bfhs;s ntz;Lk; vd;Wk;. 3/ nkw;go 2k; gpujpthjpapd; mYtyfj;jpypUe;J ,we;j rhykd; njtnerDf;F gpwF tutpUf;Fk; fUiz mog;gilapyhd ntiy thjpf;Ffpilf;Fk;gl;rj;jpy; Kjy; gpujpthjp ve;jtpj Ml;nrgiza[k; bra;af;Tlhbjd;Wk;. 4/ ,we;j rhykd; njtnerd; bgw;w fld;fs; midj;ija [k; Kjy; gpujpthjp igry; bra;a ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; nkw;go fld;fspy; thjpf;F ve;jtpj bghWg;g[k; fpilahbjd;Wk; jPh;g;ghiz tH';fg;gLfpwJ/" 3. As per the compromise decree, the daughter in law of the petitioner is receiving family pension. The daughter in law agreed for the payment of DCRG to the petitioner. Based on the compromise decree, the fourth respondent sent proposals to the first respondent for payment of DCRG to the petitioner. But the first respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ passed an order dated 11.12.2008 returning the proposals stating that the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 do not provide for payment of DCRG to the father of the deceased Government servant. 4. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the aforesaid order dated 11.12.2008 of the first respondent and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to relax the Rules for granting DCRG so as to pay the DCRG in terms of the compromise decree passed by the District Munsif Court, Arakonam in O.S.No.200 of 2000 on 03.12.2004. 5. Notice of motion was ordered on 16.04.2009. 6. Heard Mr.M.Venkatakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1,3 & 4 and Mrs.T.S.Selvarani, learned counsel for the second respondent. 7. As per the Rule 46 (1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, (in short "the Rules") the DCRG has to be paid to the wife, if there is no nomination made by the deceased Government servant. In this case, no nomination was made and hence as per the Rules, the DCRG has to be paid to the wife of the deceased Government servant. However, the wife of the deceased Government servant and father of the deceased Government servant entered into a compromise and a decree was passed by the District Munsif Court, Arakonam in O.S.No.200 of 2000 on 03.12.2004, providing DCRG to the petitioner and family pension to the wife of the deceased Government servant. 8. In the suit proceedings, the fourth respondent was also one of the parties. Taking into account, the aforesaid facts of the case, the first respondent is directed to pass suitable orders giving necessary relaxation in this matter by exercising its power under Rule 82 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, so as to pay DCRG to the petitioner pursuant to the compromise decree dated 03.12.2004 in O.S.No.200 of 2000 by the District Munsif Court, Arakonam and to send necessary proposals to the second respondent for payment of DCRG to the petitioner. 9. As stated above, since there was a compromise decree, it is a fit case where the first respondent could exercises its power to relax the Rules that is provided under the Rule 82 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. 10. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 11.12.2008 of the first respondent is liable to be quashed and the same is quashed. The first respondent is directed to exercise its power under Rule 82 of the Rules by passing suitable order relaxing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the rules so as to ensure the payment of DCRG to petitioner and to send proposals to the second respondent for payment of DCRG and the second respondent is directed to pass orders sanctioning DCRG to the petitioner. The first respondent is directed to complete its exercise within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and the second respondent is directed to sanction DCRG within a period of two weeks thereafter. 11. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar r n s To 1. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Finance (Pension) Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Accountant General, Accounts and Entitlement, Tamil Nadu, 361, Anna Salai, Chennai – 18. 3. The Director, Directorate of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 6. 4. The District Educational Officer, Vellore District. Vellore. +1cc to Mrs.T.S.Selvarani, Advocate SR 57165 +1cc to Govt. Pleader SR 57585 +1cc to Mr.M.Venkatakrishnan, Advocate Sr 57658 GG(CO) km/17.8. W.P.No.6462 of 2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/