SILAMPAYEE Vs. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL A AND E

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking for payment of full family pension of the deceased Government servant viz., S. Sundararajan, the petitioner-third wife has filed the present writ petition. According to the petitioner her husband was an Assistant Agricultural Officer in Vinayagapuram, Melur and died on 28.5.2007 and his two wives predeceased, prior to solemnizing the marriage with her. His first wife viz., Sundarammal died in 1994 and through her, three children viz., Jeyajothi, Jeyasudha and Jeyaraman were born. Thereafter, the deceased Government servant, married one Sulochana in 1996 as his second wife. Through her, one child viz., Vijaya was born and she was a minor at the time of death of the Government servant. Unfortunately, the second wife also died in the year 1997. As the Government servant was a widower with four children, he made a request to the petitioner to marry him in the interest of the children. The marriage between the petitioner and deceased Government servant was solemnized in 1997.

(2.) According to the petitioner, she has no, issues and was taking care of all the four children during, the, lifetime of her husband and continues to do so. It is her further contention that during the life time of her husband, on 6.12.1999, he, nominated the petitioner to receive family pension and that the same was accepted. He died on 28.5.2007. As per his desire, the petitioner solemnized the marriage of his elder daughter, Jeyajothi. According to the petitioner, after the demise of her husband, in the absence of any other source of income other than family pension, she is put to financial hardship. The portion of family pension, given to her, is also insufficient. In these circumstances, the petitioner's mother-in-law and all the four children born through the two wives of her husband have given consent for disbursement of DCRG, family Pension, in entirety to the writ petitioner. Pursuant to the requisition made to the respondents, in this regard the Joint Director of Agriculture, Tallakulam, the third respondent herein, vide his order, dated 20.6.2008, directed the petitioner to appear in person, along with the children on 25.8.2008. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the third respondent and also submitted a statement. The children born through the first wife also appeared in person and gave their consent letter for disbursement of full family pension to the petitioner. A report has also been forwarded by the third respondent on 23.10.2008, recommending disbursement of full family pension to the petitioner, to the Principal Accountant General (A & E), the first respondent herein. The first respondent herein. The first respondent, without considering the request of the petitioner in proper perspective and the voluntary consent given by the children born through two wives and also of the report of the Joint Director of Agriculture, Tallakulam, dated 23.10.2008, directed to disburse the family pension in the following manner; a) one share to the petitioner b) two shares to the children born through the two wives of the petitioner's husband.

(3.) In the earlier order, dated 15.4.2008, the remaining two shares alloted to the children born through the two wives, have been withheld for want of certain required documents. In the abovesaid circumstances, the petitioner has submitted that as the third wife and widow, she is the only natural guardian to the children and manager of the family and since all the family members have given consent for disbursement of family pension in entirety to her, there cannot be any restriction or prohibition in disbursement of the family pension in full to her. As there is a failure to exercise the duty on the part of the first respondent, she has approached this Court for a writ of mandamus.