P.PANGAJAM Vs. ASSISTANT ELEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in PEN/20/I/12000653/09 -10/ADK, dated 13.08.2009, and proceedings of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.83/al/2010, dated 29.08.2010, quash the same and direct the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner with effect from 15.09.1995 with all consequential benefits including payment of arrears flowing therefrom.

(2.) Ms.Y.Kavitha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by stating that the request of the petitioner for payment of 'family pension' has been repeatedly rejected by the 2nd respondent on the ground that there was no entry regarding voluntary retirement of the petitioner's husband from service and that he actually resigned from service, at the first instance, briefly pointed out the facts to the effect that the petitioner's husband - late A.G.Perumalsamy was appointed as Teacher on 13.08.1958 with posting at the Board Elementary School, Sungaramadakku, and on 05.11.1974, he submitted his resignation from the post of Head Master while serving in Sindhlippu Panchayt Union Elementary School. The Commissioner of Kudimangalam Panchayat Union accepted the resignation vide proceedings Pa.Mu.No.7973/73/C1, dated 27.02.1975. At the time of resignation, he had put in 16 years, 2 months and 22 days of service. Subsequently, he passed away on 15.09.1995. A similar case as that of the petitioner for payment of family pension was considered positively, therefore, she made a representation on 10.01.2009. Though the same was forwarded to the 2nd respondent by the first respondent through letter Reg.R.C. No.106/2009/A1, dated 23.02.2009, sadly, the third respondent returned the proposals by reply No.PEN 20/I/P93 -1550/FP/08 -09/ADK, dated 03.03.2009, stating that there was no entry regarding the resignation of the petitioner's husband in the service records. Again, the petitioner made a detailed representation, dated 17.06.2009, to the first respondent clarifying the doubts raised by the said Authority in his communication dated 03.03.2009. Even after receiving the same, the 3rd respondent again rejected the request of the petitioner for payment of family pension by assigning a reason that the petitioner's husband himself was not eligible for pension since he resigned from service and therefore, his legal heirs are not entitled to claim any family pension. Referring to the reply dated 13.08.2009, the first respondent rejected the petitioner's application, vide communication dated 29.08.2010, stating that the family of the employee who resigned from the post is not eligible for 'family pension'.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the rejection orders passed by R -1 and R -3 are untenable and liable to be interfered with for the following reasons.