R. Chandrika v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary Transport Department Secretariat
2012-04-11
N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
body2012
DigiLaw.ai
Judgment :- 1. The petitioners pray for issuing writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the G.O. Ms. No. 10, Transport Department dated 06.06.2002 on the file of the first respondent in so far as it relates to the conditions laid down in para 7 (a) of the said Government Order and consequently direct the first respondent to grant family pension and for payment of arrears of Family Pension to the petitioners from 19.10.1989, 05.05.1989, 16.01.1980, 14.06.2009 and 01.01.2000, the date of the death of the petitioners husband respectively, by following the earlier decisions of this Court in W.A. No. 1246 of 2009 dated 18.08.2010, W.P. No. 33975 of 2005 dated 20.09.2011 and in W.P. No. 35674 of 2005 dated 20.09.2011. 2. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for both sides agree that the issue involved in the above writ petitions is squarely covered by the decision of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court made in W.P. No. 21614 of 2007 dated 20.09.2011. In the said writ petition also an identical prayer was made by a widow of the deceased employee of the transport corporation. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel on either side that this writ petition may also be disposed of on the similar lines as per the order passed by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court. 3. At this stage, it would be relevant to quote the operative portion of the decision of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court made in WP No. 21614 of 2007 dated 20.09.2011, which is extracted below:- "14.) Therefore, we direct the first respondent to sanction the family pension to the petitioner taking into account the services rendered by her husband and the factum of payment of family pension to him till his death. The petitioner is directed to exercise her option within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order so as to enable the authorities to sanction family pension. It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to the pension under the Employees Provident Fund scheme with effect from the date on which the family pension is sanctioned. 15.) The first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders granting family pension to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any case within three months from the date of receipt of option from the petitioner." 4.
15.) The first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders granting family pension to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any case within three months from the date of receipt of option from the petitioner." 4. In the light of the order passed by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court, mentioned supra, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents to sanction family pension to the petitioners by taking into account the services rendered by their husband and the factum of payment of family pension to him till his death. The petitioners are directed to exercise their option within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order so as to enable the authorities to sanction family pension. It is made clear that the petitioners are not entitled to the pension under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme with effect from the date on which the family pension is sanctioned. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders granting family pension to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of option from the petitioners. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.