1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD).No.4080 of 2011 G.Ganesan : Petitioner Vs. 1.The State rep. by The District Collector, Collectorate, Pudukkottai. 2.The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Manamelkudi, Pudukkottai District. 3.The Accountant General (A&E), O/o.Accountant General, 361, Anna Salai, Chennai-18. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay the family pension arrears for the period from 10.08.2006 to 16.06.2008 and the revised pension arrears payable to the petitioner's father Mr.R.Govindasamy with 18% interest. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Arul Selvan For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.B.Pugalendhi Special Government Pleader For Respondent No.3 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 2. By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition for a Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay the family pension arrears for the period from 10.08.2006 to 16.06.2008 and the revised pension arrears payable to the petitioner's father Mr.R.Govindasamy with 18% interest. 4. The case of the petitioner is that his father one Govindasamy worked as Block Development Officer in the office of the second respondent and retired on 30.04.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation. Subsequent to his retirement, he was paid monthly pension till his death i.e. till 10.08.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner, being the dependent of his father and a person with 90% disability, approached the respondents and requested them to pay family pension as per Rule 49 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 (6)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. However, his claim was rejected. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.5069 of 2008. An order came to be passed on 17.06.2008 directing the respondents to pay the family pension to him. 5. Thereafter, the third respondent authorized family pension in favour of the petitioner, by proceeding dated 17.06.2008. The petitioner is eligible to get family pension on and from the date of death of his father, i.e., from 10.08.2006. However, the same was not considered by the respondents and hence, the petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition for the reliefs stated earlier. 6. After hearing the learned counsel in this regard, I am of the considered view that on an earlier occasion, when the petitioner came before this Court by filing the Writ Petition in W.P.No.5069 of 2008, this Court, by an order dated 17.06.2008, has held that the petitioner is entitled for pension, since he is the physically challenged person with 90% disability on the date of death of his father i.e. on 10.08.2006. However, the petitioner has been paid pension only from the date of the order, viz., from 17.06.2008. This Court has never said that the petitioner is entitled for pension on and from 17.06.2008 only. The petitioner's father died on 10.08.2006 and the petitioner is entitled to get the family pension on and from the said date. This fact was not taken into consideration by the first and second respondents. In fact, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent stated that in view of the proposal sent by the first and second respondents to settle the pension to the petitioner on and from 17.06.2008, the pension has been settled to the petitioner only from that date. If the proposal is sent by the first and second respondents to the third respondent for payment of pension from 10.08.2006 to 16.06.2008, the same will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed by the third respondent. 7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I direct the first and second respondents to send the pension proposal of the petitioner for payment of pension from 10.08.2006 to 16.06.2008, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the third respondent is directed to consider the same, in the light of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.5069 of 2008, dated 17.06.2008 and settle the pension to the petitioner, if he is so entitled to, within a period of four weeks thereafter. It is needless to say that if the petitioner is entitled for revision of pension, the proposal has also to be sent by the first and second respondents, which has to be considered by the third respondent. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Pudukkottai. 2.The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Manamelkudi, Pudukkottai District. 3.The Accountant General (A&E), O/o.Accountant General, 361, Anna Salai, Chennai-18. +1cc to Mr.J.Arul Selvam, Advocate, SR.No.21379 SML GH : 08.07.2011 : 3p/5c Order made in W.P.(MD).No4080 of 2011 Dated:- 29.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/