LAKSHMI Vs. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner-Lakshmi has come to this Court by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent-The Additional Sub-Treasury Officer, Bhavani Post, Bhavani, Erode District in Ka.Mu.Aa.30/2008/A4 dated nil/5/2008 (signed on 12.5.2008) to quash the same with the further direction to the respondents herein to continue to pay to the petitioner the Civil (Service) Family Pension, PPO No. 86840/FA, together with arrears with effect from May 2008 along with the grant of Freedom Fighters Pension, in pursuant to the representation dated 22.9.2009. (i) Mr. R. Selvakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the wife of late Perumal, the Freedom Fighter who fought against the foreign rulers to get independent India and in recognition of his participation in the freedom movement, the Government of India through the State of Tamil Nadu was paying freedom fighters pension and the petitioner's husband was also enjoying the freedom fighter pension as other freedom fighters. But, after his death, the petitioner was eligible to get the freedom fighter pension and has been receiving the same till this date.

(2.) (I) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in support of the impugned order to restrict only one pension to the widow petitioner. Mr. N. Srinivasan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that after the death of the petitioner's husband, she has been in receipt of Central Freedom Fighter Family pension in Pension Payment Order No. 4363/9 at Sub-Treasury, Bhavani and another State Freedom Fighter Family Pension at Sub-Treasury, Erode and she has been in receipt of State Civil Family Pension. When she is receiving three family pensions, she is not eligible to get family pension admissible under Rule 13(B) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. Therefore, the fourth respondent-Additional Sub-treasury Officer issued a letter dated 9.5.2008 to the petitioner to appear at the Sub-Treasury, Bhavani Office and inform her option to any of the family pensions as she cannot get three family pensions. In view of sub-rule 13-B, in G.O. Ms. No. 23, Finance (Pension), dated 6.1.1986, family pension admissible under this rule shall not be granted to a person, who is already in receipt of family pension or is eligible therefor under any other pension rules. In the light of the abovesaid G.O., the Accountant General has raised an objection. But the petitioner neither appeared before the Sub-Treasury, Bhavani nor exercised any option to forego any one of the Family Pensions, hence the Civil Family Pension in Pension Payment Order No. 86840/FA has been stopped from pension for May 2008 onwards, he pleaded.

(3.) (I) Admittedly, in the present case, during the life time of the petitioner's husband late Perumal for having participated in the freedom movement, in recognition of his participation the Government of India paid Central Government Freedom Fighter's Pension. In addition to that, he was enjoying the freedom fighter pension from the State. That apart, as he was employed in the civil service, after his retirement, he was also getting Civil (Service) Pension. In all, the petitioner's husband late Perumal was enjoying three pensions. After his death, the petitioner who is the wife of late Perumal was also paid with Central Freedom fighter family pension, State Civil Family pension, and State Freedom Fighter family pension. In the meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978 underwent an amendment. As a result, G.O. Ms. No. 23, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 6.1.1996 was passed and sub-rule 13(B) has been inserted, and thereby, Family Pension admissible under this rule shall not be granted to a person who is already in receipt of family pension or is eligible therefor under any other pension rules. In view of that, the 4th respondent issued a letter to the petitioner to exercise her option to any of the family pension as she cannot get three family Pensions. Therefore, the question raised in the writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to get three family pension.