MOTTAIYAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is aged about 72 years, was extended the benefit of old age pension by the third respondent herein in his proceeding No.P3/2996/12, dated 02.01.2013. Subsequently, the respondent stopped the pension. The petitioner sent a petition under Right to Information Act, to which, the third respondent had given a reply dated 28.02.2017 stating that the petitioner's old age pension was discontinued, since he was found to have three daughters, a house and that he worked as Night Watchman.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, all the petitioner's daughters are aged more than 20 years and they are married and living separately away from the petitioner. The petitioner is now residing at the house along with his aged wife. He also has a disability in one leg and hence, the allegation that he is employed as watchman is incorrect. It is further submitted that for the purpose of getting his three daughters' marriage, he had already mortgaged his own house and therefore, he is finding himself extremely difficult to repay the mortgage loan amount along with interest.

(3.) The learned Additional Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that the criteria for sanctioning the old-age pension under the Social Security Scheme is regulated by proceeding in ROC.No.Rev.Aud5(1)/44665/2014 dated 24.04.2015. As per the said proceedings, a destitute person without any income and owning fixed assets valuing less than Rs.50,000/-, and who have no relatives above the age about 20 years is entitled for old-age pension. Since the petitioner does not fall under the category of destitute person, he is not entitled for the pension.