S LATHA Vs. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL A E

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's husband, who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police in the second respondent unit, wanted to go on voluntary retirement with effect from 31.10.1998. Accordingly, he was permitted to go under Voluntary retirement.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the petitioner's husband wanted only a commuted value of pension, but the petitioner was granted full pension. It is pleaded that in Form No.V, prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, Column No.12 was corrected, i.e., according to the petitioner, when the petitioner's husband wrote 'yes' for commutation, it was corrected as 'no'. The petitioner's husband died on 11.06.1999. The petitioner made a complaint dated 26.11.99 to the third respondent, seeking commutation of pension. It is also stated that while her husband was alive, he sent a letter dated 30.04.1999 requesting for commutation of pension. The petitioner by her letter dated 14.06.1999 requested commutation of pension.

(3.) THE entire file relating to the payment of pension was produced by the respondents 2 and 3. THE learned counsel representing the first respondent produced the written instruction. In the written instruction, it is stated that as per Form No.V, the petitioner's husband did not request commutation of pension. Hence, full pension was sanctioned.