IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08 / 09 / 2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.NO.48495 OF 2006 Mrs.B.Rani ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Commissioner of Police, The Office of Commissioner, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 2. Accountant General, The Office of the Accountant General, No.261 Anna Salai, Chennai 600 018. ... Respondents PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus by way of transfer of O.A.No.1519 of 2001, to quash the portion of the order passed by the respondent-Commissioner of Police passed in Na.Ka.No. Pension (South)/02010/99 dated 16.02.1999 relating to para 9 and 11 of the order and to direct the respondents to sanction and pay 50% of the family pension with effect from 02.09.1994 with interest immediately and direct the respondents to pay the full family pension with effect from 01.09.2001. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Govinda Reddy For Respondent - 1 : Mrs.C.K.Vishnu Priya Additional Government Pleader For Respondent – 2 : Mr.Vijayashankar O R D E R The petitioner is the second wife of late Mr.A.S.Bharathi. Mr.A.S.Bharathi joined the Tamil Nadu Police Services as Grade – II Police Constable on 13.12.1973. Subsequently, he was promoted as Grade – I Police Constable on 02.04.1993. While he was in service, he met with an accident on 01.09.1994 and he succumbed to injuries. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. It is stated that the first wife of Mr.A.S.Bharathi, pre-deceased him, in the year 1979. Thereafter, Mr.A.S.Bharathi married the petitioner viz., B.Rani, on 08.09.1981 at Annai Velankanni Church, Besant Nager, Chennai. 3. Mr.A.S.Bharathi left two children born through the first wife, three children born through the second wife, the petitioner herein and the petitioner as his legal heirs. Mr.A.S.Bharathi nominated the petitioner herein as his legal heir to receive all the benefits in the event of his death. 4. Based on the nomination and the legal heirship certificate produced by the petitioner, she was given various death benefits. The payment details of those benefits are, (i) Rs.60,000/- towards family welfare fund, (ii) Rs.3,884/- towards special provident fund, (iii) Rs.1,00,000/- towards benefit under the Group Insurance Scheme and (iv) Earn leave salary for 92 days, that was in the accumulation of the deceased. 5. The first respondent also sent proposals dated 09.03.1995 to the second respondent for payment of pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity, in favour of the petitioner. The second respondent sought certain particulars for sanctioning family pension. The first respondent sent a letter dated 24.01.1996 to the petitioner seeking to send particulars relating to the date of her marriage with late Mr.A.S.Bharathi, with documentary evidence. The petitioner represented that there was no documentary evidence for her marriage. 6.While so, the impugned order dated 16.12.1999 was passed by the first respondent refusing to pay family pension to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence for her marriage with late Mr.A.S.Bharathi. 7.The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.1519 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to quash the aforesaid order dated 16.02.1999 of the first respondent and for a consequential direction to the respondents to sanction and pay 50% of the family pension with effect from 02.09.1994 with interest immediately and to direct the respondents to pay the full family pension with effect from 01.09.2001. 8.The respondents filed reply affidavit. In the reply affidavit, the respondents admitted the service particulars of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.A.S.Bharathi as disclosed by the petitioner and also about the death of Mr.A.S.Bharathi in a road accident. The respondents also admitted about the various death benefits being paid to the petitioner, based on the nomination and legal heirship certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai. It is also admitted that the proposals were sent by the first respondent, recommending family pension to the petitioner, vide their proposals dated 09.03.1995. It is stated that the second respondent sent a proceeding dated 16.05.1995 for payment of 50% of family pension from 02.09.1994 to 01.09.2001 to the petitioner and other 50% to the minor daughter born through the first wife of the deceased and that full pension shall be paid after 02.09.2001. But the aforesaid proceedings of the second respondent, sanctioning family pension to the petitioner, was subject to the condition that the petitioner should produce her marriage certificate with the deceased Mr.A.S.Bharathi. It is further stated that the petitioner gave a letter dated 02.10.1996 wherein, it is stated that she married Mr.A.S.Bharathi on 08.09.1979, after the death of his first wife and there was no proof for her marriage, as the marriage was solemnized at Annai Velankanni Church, Besant Nager, Chennai, in the presence of the mother and sisters of the deceased only. However, as per the death certificate produced by the petitioner, the first wife died only on 24.03.1981 and that therefore, the marriage of the petitioner with late Mr.A.S.Bharathi was not a legal one. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to family pension. 9.On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.48495 of 2006. 10.Heard Mr.D.Govinda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mrs.C.K.Vishnu Priya, learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent and Mr.Vijayashankar, learned counsel for the second respondent. 11.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the respondents paid various death benefits to the petitioner, such as family welfare fund, special provident fund, Group Insurance Scheme benefits and encashment of earn leave, treating the petitioner as the legally wedded wife, the respondents could not deny family pension on the ground that the petitioner was not the legally wedded wife. According to the learned counsel, the first respondent accepted the nomination of the petitioner, as she is the wife of the deceased Mr.A.S.Bharathi and the said nomination was acted upon by paying the death benefits. The legal heirship certificate issued by the concerned Tahsildar also states that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife. Both the nomination and the legal heirship certificate were acted upon. It is further stated that the petitioner got married with Mr.A.S.Bharathi only on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 08.09.1981, after the death of the first wife on 24.03.1981. It is the further case of the petitioner that the impugned order nowhere states that the petitioner gave a wrong statement about the date of marriage and on the other hand, the impugned order states that the petitioner failed to submit proof for her marriage. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in MOHINDER SINGH GILL VS. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 in this regard. 12.According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 02.10.1996 stating that her marriage with Mr.A.S.Bharathi took place in the year 1979 and that therefore the marriage took place, when the first wife was alive, as the date of death of the first wife was only on 24.03.1981. 13.I have considered the submissions made on either side. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the reason for rejecting family pension as disclosed in the impugned order is that the petitioner failed to establish her marriage with late Mr.A.S.Bharathi and no other reason is given therein. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied on a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in MOHINDER SINGH GILL VS. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI reported in AIR 1978 SC 851, wherein it is held that no new reasons could be given by the Department in support of the impugned order and the impugned order has to be tested based on the reasons stated therein only. In this case, late Mr.A.S.Bharathi nominated the petitioner as his wife. That is, as per the official records, the petitioner is shown as the wife of late Mr.A.S.Bharathi. Further, the Tahsildar, Egmore- Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai also gave a legal heirship certificate stating that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife. Based on the nomination as well as the legal heirship certificate, the Department disbursed the death benefits viz., family welfare fund, special provident fund, Group Insurance Scheme benefits and encashment of earn leave to the petitioner. The respondents could not say that they could treat the petitioner as legally wedded wife for the purpose of all the aforesaid payment of death benefits and she is not the legally wedded wife for the purpose of payment of family pension. The respondents have also not produced any records except the counter affidavit. In fact, the first respondent also sent proposals recommending payment of family pension to the petitioner. Even the first respondent sent a reply stating that the petitioner could be paid family pension subject to the condition that the petitioner should produce proof for her marriage with late Mr.A.S.Bharathi. In the said circumstances, the claim for family pension to the petitioner cannot be denied on the ground that she failed to produce documentary evidence for her marriage with late Mr.A.S.Bharathi, since she was paid death benefits by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Department accepting the nomination made by the petitioner late Mr.A.S.Bharathi as his wife. 14.In these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable. Hence, the impugned order dated 16.12.1999 passed by the first respondent is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay family pension with arrears to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. RNS/TK To 1. The Commissioner of Police, The Office of Commissioner, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 2. Accountant General, The Office of the Accountant General, No.261 Anna Salai, Chennai 600 018. 1 cc to Mr.V. Vijay Shankar, Advocate, Sr. 67373 W.P.NO.48495 OF 2006 TRM (CO) kk 21/9 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/