GOVINTHAMAL Vs. SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER (PENSION)O/O PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (ACCOUNTS & ENTITLEMENTS) CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner to grant second family pension on condition that the petitioner was ready to forego the first family pension is under challenge in the present writ pension.

(2.) The writ petitioner states that her husband Late Mr.Karunakaran was working as Gangman Mazdoor in Highways Department. Her husband died on 10/12/1984, while he was service. Thus, the son of the writ petitioner was appointed in the Judicial Department on compassionate grounds. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was receiving family pension on account of the death of her husband. While receiving family pension her son was also appointed on compassionate ground. The son was working in the Judicial Department and unfortunately he also died on 27/4/2013. At the time of death, the son of the petitioner was junior Bailiff.

(3.) The petitioner submitted a representation to the Authorities to sanction family pension due to the death of her son. In her representation, she has stated that in the event of sanctioning family pension on account of the death of her son, she is ready to forego the family pension already she is receiving due to the death of her husband from the year 1984. It is an admitted fact that the writ petitioner is receiving family pension from the year 1984. The son died in the year 2013. Thus, the writ petitioner was receiving family pension for about 29 years, till such time, her son died on 27/4/2013.