P MOHANA Vs. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT GENERAL (A&E) TAMIL NADU; PENSION PAYMENT OFFICER COLLEGE ROAD, CHENNAI; DEAN TIRUNELVELI MEDICAL COLLEGE; STATE OF TAMIL NADU; DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU MEDICAL EDUCATION; P RAMACHANDRAN; P LOGANATHAN; P SUNDAR; RENUKADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition praying for a direction to the first and second respondents to sanction and disburse the family pension and death benefits from the date of death of her husband i.e. 22.01.2002, to the petitioner, along with interest thereon till date of realisation.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she is the wife of late Dr.D.Parthasarathi, who had attained superannuation on 31.03.1993 and was drawing pension. According to the petitioner, her husband was working as a Senior Civil Surgeon in the Government Medical College. Dr.Parthasarathi passed away on 22.01.2002 leaving behind him the petitioner, his three sons and one daughter as his legal heirs. According to the petitioner, she is the only person entitled to claim family pension and benefits and hence approached the second respondent for grant of family pension and all other estate of her husband. The second respondent, after verifying the pension records, found that there is no nomination of petitioner's name in the Pension Payment Order papers. The petitioner stated that she had acquaintance with the deceased Dr.Parthasarathi and his family and was residing adjacent to his clinic as neighbour and that the petitioner and her family members were getting treatment from him. The petitioner further stated that Mrs.Saradha Parthasarathi was the first wife of late Dr.Parthasarathi and they had three children. The first wife fell sick due to chronic Gynaecological disorders and was frequently hospitalized and that she took care of their three minor children, whenever Mrs.Saradha Parthasarathi was hospitalised. In 1974 she was completely bedridden and Dr.Parthasarathi was frequently transferred to various stations and that the petitioner was taking care of his affairs, minor children including his first wife Mrs.Saradha Parthasarathy at Madras. Seeing the affection she was showing to the minor children and his wife, Dr.Parthasarthi proposed to the petitioner to marry him for the purpose of taking care of his minor children and his ailing wife. She agreed, but the marriage did not take place due to the existing laws in the society and they started living together as husband and wife from the year 1975 and this fact was known to the first wife as well as to her relatives and friends. The petitioner gave birth to a female child in the year 1976 and in the birth certificate, the name of the father is mentioned as Parthasarathi and the petitioner's name is noted as mother. The petitioner further stated that her daughter subsequently became a major, got married and in the marriage invitation, it is stated that the petitioner is the mother and late Dr.Parthasarathi as the father of the daughter born to them. Mrs.Saradha Parthasarathi pre-deceased Dr.Parthasarathi and Parthasarathi died on 22.01.2002. Till the date of his death, the petitioner and Dr.Parthasarathi were living as husband and wife. The petitioner further stated that during the life time of the her husband, Sastiaptha Purthi (60th birthday) was conducted according to the Hindu religious rites and in the presence of all the children and all the relatives of the petitioner and Dr.Parthasarathi. It is further stated that the Tahsildar has also issued a Legal Heir Certificate including the name of the petitioner herein. The petitioner's request for grant of family pension was rejected by the first respondent on the ground that the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the records. It is further stated by the petitioner that the respondents failed to look into that the grant of family pension is only to compensate the destitute widow, which cannot be deprived of, as it is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice provided to take care of themselves during the hey days of their life. In the above circumstances, the petitioner prayed that a Mandamus may be issued directing the first and second respondent to pay family pension and death benefits due to the petitioner's husband late Dr.Parthasarthi along with interest, till the actual amount is paid to the petitioner.

(3.) During the pendency of the writ petition, respondents 6 to 9 got impleaded as parties in this case. Respondents 6 to 9 have filed a counter supporting the case of the petitioner. They are all legal heirs of late Dr.Parthasarathi.