1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :12.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No.9569 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 V.Rajamani .. Petitioner vs. The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Aringar Anna Maligai, Madurai. .. Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay monthly family pension with interest to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sundareshan For Respondent : Mr.M.Ravishankar ORDER The Petitioner has come to this Court by filing this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondent to pay monthly family pension with interest to the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the only dependent on her husband. But unfortunately, after his demise, the petitioner has to live only on the pensionary benefits of her husband late.G.Vairam. But the respondent has not furnished any information as to why they are not paying the monthly family pension in spite of several written requests made to them. Finally, in response to a letter, the respondent has sent a reply letter dated 07.04.2011 informing the petitioner that her husband during the period between 14.03.1993 to 21.03.1997 remained unauthorizedly absent. Therefore, he was dismissed from service and subsequently, when the order of dismissal was challenged before the appellate authority praying to treat the said service as break in service, subsequently he was reinstated in service and the period of absence was treated as break in service. Later on he died on 04.01.2005. 3. Therefore, the only argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before this Court is that being a widow of a Government employee, she has got a right to receive the monthly family pension and the denial of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the pension by the respondent is nothing but tantamount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. On that basis, when a legal notice was sent on 27.06.2011 to sanction monthly family pension with 12% interest, even that notice has not been responded. Under these circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to come to this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to pay the monthly family pension to her. 4. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent - Madurai Corporation has already taken steps to pass orders providing the provisional pension till the issue is finally decided by the competent authorities. The said provisional monthly family pension amount of Rs.4,700/- would be disbursed from 1st November, 2011. But the only thing is that the petitioner has to keep is bank account ready so that she can go and collect the amount. 5. Since the respondent has made a statement that already provisional monthly family pension has been sanctioned for a sum of Rs.4,700/-, this Court recording the said statement, directs the petitioner to open a bank account in anyone of the nationalised banks so that she would be in a position to receive the same. 6. In view of the peculiar situation in which the poor widow is placed in, this Court directs the respondent - Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai to take effective steps to provide the permanent monthly family pension to the petitioner in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Aringar Anna Maligai, Madurai pm rl/2c – 22.11.2011 W.P.(MD)No.9569 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 12.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/