J S RUKMANI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions raise a common question of law relating to the liability of the State of Tamil Nadu for payment of family pension to widows of employees who were in the service of the former State of Madras and who retired from service before reorganisation of States under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. The facts giving rise to these writ petitions are almost identical and it will therefore be enough if we state the facts of only one writ petition, namely, Writ Petition No. 4309 of 1982.

(2.) THIS writ petition came to be initiated as a result of a letter addressed to this Court by the petitioner complaining that though she was the widow of an employee of the former State of Madras, who retired before the reorganisation of the States under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, she was not being given the benefit of family pension which was granted by the State of Tamil Nadu under a Notification dated 26th May, 1979. The letter of the petitioner was treated as a writ petition and notice was issued to the State of Tamil Nadu and since it appeared that the State of Tamil Nadu was disputing its liability to pay family pension to the petitioner on the ground that (he deceased husband of the petitioner was serving in Cannanore at the time of his retirement and that Cannanore having become part of the State of Kerala as a result of the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act 1956 it was the State of Kerala which was liable to pay family pension, if at all, to the petitioner, the Court also joined the State of Kerala as a respondent to the writ petition and issued notice to the State of Kerala. It was common ground between the parties that the husband of the petitioner was in the employment of the former State of Madras and was serving as Deputy Inspector of Schools until 19lh August, 1954 when he retired from Service on supperannuation. The place where he served last as Deputy Inspector of Schools was Cannanore and after his retirement, he settled down in his ancestral house in village Kunniseri in Palghat District which was originally part of the former State of Madras but which on the reorganisation of the States came to belong to the State of Kerala. The husband of the petitioner was, for the sake of convenience, drawing his pension from the nearest Sub Treasury in Pal ghat until his death which occurred in July, 1963.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner based on this paragraph of the Notification dated 26th May, 1979 was that she was entitled to family pension at the rate of Rs. 100 per month with effect from 1st April, 1979 since her husband was an employee of the former State of Madras and had retired prior to 1st April, 1964 and subsequently died. The petitioner made an application to the Secretary to the Govt. of Tamil Nadu on 5th July, 1981 for grant of family pension at the rate of Rs. 100/ per month under Paragraph 7 of the Notification dated 26th May, 1979 and on this application, the Govt. of Tamil Nadu intimated to the petitioner through a letter dated 22nd November, 1981 addressed by the Joint Director of Schools Education that the family pension of Rs. 100/ per month was sanctioned to the petitioner with effect from 1st April, 1979. The petitioner was accordingly paid family pension at the rate of Rs. 100/ per month for a period of about 6 months. Surprisingly, on 20th April 1982, the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Tamil Nadu addressed a letter to the petitioner stating that because the petitioner's husband last served in Cannanore at the time of his retirement and Cannanore does not now form part of the present State of Tamil Nadu, the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of family pension under the clarification issued by the Govt. of Tamil Nadu in its G.O. MS/63 (Finance) dated 18th March, 1982. This Notification sought to clarify that if the place of retirement of an employee or the place where he was last serving at the time of his death while in service, did not form part of the present State of Tamil Nadu, the widow of such employee would not be entitled to the benefit of family pension under the Notification dated 26th May, 1979 and it was on the basis of this clarification that the family pension which was being paid by the State of Tamil Nadu to the petitioner was discontinued by the letter dated 20th April, 1982. The petitioner being obviously a woman without any means, it was not possible for her to get relief by filing a regular writ petition and she therefore sought to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by addressing a letter complaining of discrimination against her and praying that family pension at the rate of Rs. 100/ per month should be directed to be paid to her by the State of Tamil Nadu under the Notification dated 26th May, 1979.