COMMISSIONER OF LUDUKKOTTAI MUNICIPALITY Vs. V. RAMAYEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before dealing with the writ appeal, we would like to narrate the circumstances under which the writ petition was filed by the respondent. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, namely, W.J. No. 12796 of 1991, the respondent says that she is the legally wedded wife of one late Veeraya. The said Veeraya was working as a Sweeper in the appellant-Municipality. He died in the year 1969. The petitioner says that she is eligible for Family Pension from the date of the death of her husband. However, she admits that necessary approval was granted only on 16-7-1991 to sanction family pension with effect from 14-1-1970. In proceedings dated 28-7-1991, the appellant had issued orders sanctioning family pension. The complaint of the petitioner is that the sanction order itself had been issued nearly after 20 years after the death of her husband. Her next complaint is that in spite of the sanction, payment had not been made. She filed a representation on 6-8-1991 seeking payment of the family pension. She then refers to a Supreme Court decision to make a claim for interest on belated payment of family pension. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition was filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus, to direct the appellant herein to settle the arrears of family pension with effect from 14-1-1970 as per the sanction order dated 28-7-1991 and direct them to continue to pay family pension. It is significant to note that in the prayer, there is no claim for payment of interest.

(2.) Bakthavatsalam, J. before whom the writ petition came up for orders, issued notice of motion on 11 -9-1991. Counsel for the respondent appeared on the date of hearing, namely, First Oct., 1991 and represented that the Municipality needed time for payment and that they were lacking funds to make payment. It has to be remembered that the municipality had not been given any time to file their counter-affidavit on proper instructions. On the very same day, the learned Judge has proceeded to dispose of the writ petition on the available papers and oh the submissions made by the parties, directing payment of the family pension with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from 1970 onwards. In making this direction, learned Judge was carried away by the fact that the petitioner had been denied family pension for more than 20 years and that the sanction itself had been done only on 16-7-1991, after a period of 20 years. The observations of the learned Judge can be noticed to understand the reason for ordering interest at 18 per cent per annum. They are as follows:-

(3.) Mr. M.A. Sadanand, Teamed counsel for the appellant-Municipality brings to our notice certain vital facts relating to the payment of family pension. It is only by G.O.Ms. No. 751, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (EV I) Department, dated 25-8-1988 that the Government directed the payment of family pension to eligible legal heirs of the employees of Municipalities in respect of employees who had died before 14 1-1970. The family pension was directed to be paid from the funds of the Municipalities where the employee had last served. We have already noticed the fact that the respondent claimed family pension only in accordance with the above sanction order dated 28-7-1991. Therefore, it follows that the eligibility for getting family pension or the entitlement for getting family pension arises only under the said G.O.Ms. No. 751, dated 25-8-1988. The fact that the sanction was given for payment of family pension right from 14-1-1970 does not mean that the entitlement itself had accrued from 14-1-1970. As we have already pointed out the entitlement for payment of family pension arose only under G.O.Ms. No. 751, dated 25-8-1988 and it is only thereafter, sanction was granted on 28-7-1991. Even in the affidavit of the petitioner, it is stated that representation was made only on 6-8-1991. Therefore, we are unable to see any delay on the part of the appellant-Municipality. The writ petition came to be filed on 8-9-1991. Therefore, there is no justification for the respondent-writ petitioner to complain of any delay in the payment of family pension and the consequential demand for payment of interest. The above facts could not be brought to the notice of the learned single Judge because the writ petition was disposed of on the very day when the writ petition was posted, after notice of motion.