MANGAI AMMAL Vs. ASST DIRECTOR ANIMAL HUSBANDARY DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue letter of sanction of family pension to the petitioners appropriately.) The case of the petitioners is that late Patchaiappan retired from service on 30.6.1997 and received all retirement benefits. He also received pension till his death. After his death on 31.10.2005, according to the department, one Veerammal is the wife of late Patchaiappan. This is evident from the family card and the papers forwarded by late Patchaiappan at the time of getting retirement benefits. Therefore, the claim of the present petitioners was not accepted. On the death of Patchaiappan, on 17.3.2006, a legal heir certificate has been issued by the Tahsildar, Chengi, in pa.mu. (A5)/325/01 wherein, the first petitioner is shown as wife of late Patchaiappan and Kanniappan is shown as son of late Patchaiappan and four other persons are shown as grandchildren of Patchaiappan through the son Ramalingam and grand children of Mangaiammal, first petitioner. The department took a stand that nowhere in the papers submitted by late employee, there is a reference about the first petitioner Mangaiammal and others and therefore, they cannot claim as persons eligible for receiving family pension. Respondents 3 and 4 were impleded by the order of this Court dated 1.12.2008. The third respondent is the pension payment officer and the 4th respondent is the Principal Accountant General.

(2.) THE 4th respondent filed a counter stating that if necessary corrections are made in the service records of the deceased Patchaiappan to show that the first petitioner is the wife of the deceased Government servant then necessary steps will be taken for issuance of family pension.

(3.) FOR the present issue, this Court is of the view that it would suffice, if the first respondent is directed to reconsider the claim of the second petitioner for family pension taking into consideration the fact that he claims to be a disabled person suffering from total loss of sight.