THIRUPURASUNDARI Vs. CHIEF INTERNAL AUDITOR AND CHIEF AUDITOR OF STATUTORY BOARDS, MADRAS; SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, KHADI, BOARD AUDIT, KURALAGAM, MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings No. Na.Ka. 18308/E1/95 dated 06-02-1996 ordering recovery of pension paid to the petitioner between 12-11-1981 to 31-10-1995 in monthly instalments and to quash the same.

(2.) The petitioner's husband Jaganathan was employed in Local Fund Audit Office, Madras as Junior Assistant. He died in harness on 11-11-1981 and the petitioner was employed on compassionate grounds in the local fund audit office, Madras as Office Assistant with effect from 19-01-1983, later she was transferred to Khadi Board. The petitioner and her children were paid monthly family pension at Rs.950/- from 12-11-1981 and the petitioner was receiving the same on behalf of her children till 31-10-1995. The first respondent by letter dated 07-11-1995 calling upon the petitioner to submit her explanation as to why the family pension should not be stopped in view of the fact that the petitioner has married one Kasi on 14-05-1987 and suppressing the said marriage and receiving family pension which amounts to violative of Rule 49 (6) (1) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. The petitioner has admitted the marriage, however she has stated in her explanation dated 08-12-1995 to the first respondent that she was not aware of the fact that the said Kasi was married person and living with his spouse as such the marriage between her and the said Kasi is null and void and requested the first respondent not to stop the family pension. The first respondent by his order dated 20-12-1995 and issued charge memo stating that she is disqualified to hold the post as she has violated the Rules of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Rules. On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner has submitted her detailed explanation dated 21-01-1996 apprising the circumstances which forced her to marry the said Kasi, non-disclosure of marriage was not intentional and she was abandoned by him. Not satisfied with the explanation, the first respondent by the impugned order dated 06-02-1996 directed the 2nd respondent to recover a sum of Rs.65,473/- being the pension paid to the petitioner from her salary in 131 equal monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.500/- per month and the last one was Rs.473/-. As against the said order, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the marriage between the petitioner and Kasi was null and void as such it should be presumed as invalid, that the first respondent has no authority to recover the pension already paid to the petitioner since the Rules does not provide for recovery. Even assuming that the 2nd marriage took place, the first respondent has no jurisdiction to recover the entire pension as there were two unmarried daughters below 24 years. Even assuming without admitting that the remarriage took place on 14-05-1987, the recovery could have been made only from 14-05-1987 and not prior to it.