J KANNIGA PARAMESWARI Vs. SPECIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the third respondent dated 20.2.2006 issued in proceedings O.Mu.1005/2006/A and to direct the respondents to pay family pension to the petitioner in accordance with law.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had married one Jeyakan in the year 1984, after the death of his first wife in the year 1979. The deceased was employed in the Office of the third respondent, he reached the age of superannuation on 31.7.2005 and he had received all the benefits also. Due to certain misunderstanding, though there is no divorce, the petitioner and the deceased were residing separately and by the order of the Judicial Magistrate passed in Crl.O.P.No.8 of 1994, the maintenance was ordered to be paid by the deceased to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner's husband died on 21.6.2006. Subsequent to his death, the petitioner applied for the family pension and the petitioner was informed that since the deceased had not nominated anybody to receive the family pension, the same cannot be granted to the petitioner.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Form-E which has been meant for sanctioning of the family pension, the deceased has specifically stated that there is no nominee at all consequently, the respondent is not able to sanction the family pension, though she is eligible for the same as a wife of the deceased-Jeyakan. As such the learned counsel for the respondents contended that unless the nomination was made, the petitioner's request cannot be considered at all.