YAMUNADEVI Vs. D NALINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ Petition seeking to challenge an order dated 28.4.2011 passed by the 6th respondent Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (pension), Chennai. By the impugned order, the 1st respondent who was widow of A.Ravi Shankar and a person who was subscriber to the Provident Fund, by his employer/2nd respondent, was informed that she will be paid monthly pension with effect from 12.3.2002. Challenging the said communication, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to set aside the order dated 28.4.2011 in ordering family pension to the 1st respondent also and for a direction to the 5th and 6th respondents to sanction the monthly pension under the provisions of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 to the petitioner.

(2.) IN the writ petition, Notice of Motion was ordered on 1.6.2011. On behalf of the 1st respondent, a counter affidavit dated 25.7.2011 was filed. On behalf of the respondents 5 and 6, a common counter affidavit dated 5.8.2011 was filed.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner was that the marriage between the 1st respondent and her son was solemnized as per Hindu rites and custom and there were no children out of the wedlock. But several criminal, police, civil and matrimonial proceedings were initiated by the 1st respondent against her ex-husband and she had also filed a petition for divorce in O.P.No.2104 of 1999 on the file of the 2nd respondent Family Court. This O.P was filed on the ground of impotency on the part of the late Paranthaman. Subsequently, the petitioner's son filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Succession Act for consent divorce. Even while the proceedings were pending, her son died on 11.3.2002. It is claimed by the petitioner that her son was murdered by the 1st respondent by engaging rowdy elements. Investigation is still pending. Though the matter was closed as an accidental death, the petitioner filed O.P.No.193 of 2005 under the Indian Succession Act for getting succession certificate. The 1st respondent has filed a rival O.P No.892 of 2005 for similar relief but only claiming for = share. By a common order dated 18.9.2009, this Court allowed the original Petition filed by her. It is stated that the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent are entitled to succeed to half share in respect of the dues payable to the late Paranthaman. It is claimed that the pension payable was not the subject matter of the Original Petition. Therefore, when she applied for pension, the 1st respondent has made a claim for sanction of widow pension under the Employees ' Pension Scheme, 1995 and got some sanction in her favour suppressing the fact of remarriage. Therefore, it was claimed that the pension sanctioned in favour of the 1st respondent should be cancelled with a further direction to sanction family pension to the petitioner.