Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2154 (MAD)

The District Collector v. Venunathan

2015-06-04

G.CHOCKALINGAM, S.MANIKUMAR

body2015
Judgment : S. Manikumar, J. 1. Septuagenarian, aged about 74 years, has sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order of the Tahsildar, Social Security Scheme, Thirupparankundram Taluk, Madurai District, dated 20.06.2014 , by which, his request for grant of old age pension, has been rejected. 2. Material on record discloses that there are various social security schemes namely, Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme(IGNOAPS), Indira Gandhi National Disability Pension Scheme(IGNDPS), Indira Gandhi National Widow Pension Scheme(IGNWPS), Destitute Differently Abled Pension Scheme(DDAPS), Destitute Widow Pension Scheme(DWPS), Destitute/Deserted Wives Pension Scheme(DDWPS), Unmarried Women Pension Scheme and the Hon'ble Chief Minister Uzhavar Paadhukaappu Thittam(CMUPT). 3. Respondent in this appeal has made a representation to the Tahsildar, Social Security Scheme, Thirupparankundram Taluk, Madurai District, 2nd appellant herein, for grant of old age pension, under the Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme(IGNOAPS). However, no action was taken. Therefore, he was constrained to approach this Court, by filing W.P(MD)No.17053 of 2013. Considering his plight, this Court, vide order, dated 15.04.2014, directed the respondent herein, to give a fresh representation and that the Tahsildar, Social Security Scheme, Thirupparankundram Taluk, Madurai District, 2nd appellant herein, has been directed to consider the same. Pursuant to the directions, vide order, dated 20.06.2014, 2nd appellant has turned down the request of the respondent, based on a report, submitted by the revenue officials, who seemed to have conducted an enquiry, in the area, where the respondent herein, was residing. Report of the revenue officials, was to the effect that respondent was residing with his elder son, Mr.V.Rajendran, in a rented tiled house, and that his name did not find place, in the list of persons, living below the poverty line. Assailing the rejection order, dated 20.06.2014, W.P(MD)No.15098 of 2014, has been filed, by the respondent, for the relief stated supra. 4. Upon consideration of the averments and material on record, on 11.09.2014, the Writ Court has ordered as follows:- 3. The correct test to be applied for considering the eligibility would be as to whether the petitioner is in indigent circumstance and whether he has any other source of income, so as to independently sustain himself. 4. Upon consideration of the averments and material on record, on 11.09.2014, the Writ Court has ordered as follows:- 3. The correct test to be applied for considering the eligibility would be as to whether the petitioner is in indigent circumstance and whether he has any other source of income, so as to independently sustain himself. Though there is a moral duty for the children to maintain the parents, which has now become a statutory duty under the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, nevertheless there have been frequent cases coming before this Court where aged couple have appeared, expressed their grievances about their children stating that now old age people have not been taken care of and they have not able to maintain themselves. In the instant case, the petitioner has made such a statement before the revenue officials as well as before this Court. In fact, the second respondent has referred to the petitioner's statement in the impugned order itself. There is no material to show that the petitioner's statement is false. Further more, the revenue officials have not found that the petitioner has any other independent source of income except to state that he is residing along with his elder son V. Rajendran. The petitioner would state that his wife died several years back and he has three sons and all three sons have no formal education and they are working as coolies (Daily wagers). Each has an independent family consisting of 2 or more daughters. The petitioner would state in his statement before the officials that he is residing in the front portion of the house (“Tamil”). 4. In such circumstances, the second respondent ought not to have rejected the petitioner's application for grant of pension on the ground stated in the impugned order. In fact, the impugned order has been passed, since improper tests have been applied for deciding the petitioner's eligibility. The petitioner has appeared in person before this Court and by his appearance, primafacie, establishes that he is in indigent circumstance. In any event, this Court is not rendering the finding on that aspect, but while testing the correctness of this impugned order, this observation is made. 5. So far as the aspect as to whether the petitioner's name finds place in the list of persons living below the poverty line, the petitioner cannot be blamed. In any event, this Court is not rendering the finding on that aspect, but while testing the correctness of this impugned order, this observation is made. 5. So far as the aspect as to whether the petitioner's name finds place in the list of persons living below the poverty line, the petitioner cannot be blamed. It is not known as to on what basis such list is prepared, the procedure for preparation of such list has not been referred to in the impugned proceedings. 6. Thus, considering all the circumstances and in the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the impugned order calls for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to pay old age pension to the petitioner from the date of the petitioner's application i.e. 24.04.2013. The arrears of old age pension shall be disbursed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the current old age pension shall be paid to the petitioner from the month of October 2014. No costs.” 5. Challenging the directions issued, the present Writ Appeal has been filed. Main grounds of challenge, are that as per rule 5 of the Madras Old Age Pension Rules, a destitute is a person, without any income or source of income, and has no relatives of 20 years of age and over, of the following categories, namely, i)son, ii)son's son and iii)husband/wife and that the Writ Court has failed to consider that the name of the respondent was not included in the below poverty list, which is a pre-requisite for getting old age pension. 6. It is the further contention of the appellants that the respondent has not fulfilled the eligibility criteria, for inclusion in the below poverty list and that therefore, rejection is valid. Contention has also been made, that in a special drive conducted by the department, while implementing the directions of the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai in Roc.Ir.No.rev.Aud.5(1)46607/2013, dated 09.07.2014, nearly three lakhs cases, were found to be not genuine, throughout the State of Tamil Nadu. 7. When the appeal came up on 10.04.2015, Venunathan, respondent herein, appeared in person. 7. When the appeal came up on 10.04.2015, Venunathan, respondent herein, appeared in person. Considering his plight, and submissions required to be made, on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Government, from time to time, regarding the implementation of the abovesaid Social Security Scheme, we directed Mr. R.J. Karthick, learned counel to assist this Court. We also directed the learned Special Government Pleader, to furnish the details of the schemes. 8. Eligibility criteria for old age pension is that, old aged persons should be aged 60 years and above, and below the poverty line (BPL). G.O.Ms.No.265, Revenue Department, dated 10.09.2011, has been issued, for the implementation of the Hon'ble Chief Minister Uzhavar Paadhukaappu Thittam(CMUPT). Clause (iv)(d) of the G.O., prescribes grant of old age pension of a sum of Rs.1,000/- to a person, who had completed 60 years and does not possess any capacity to work, on account of old age. Destitute, includes a person, even if a son or daughter is alive and the former is entitled to old age pension of Rs. 1,000/- per month. G.O. Ms.No.265, further states that yet another Social Security Scheme, namely, Destitute Agricultural Labourer Pension Scheme was in vogue in 1981 and about 3.55 lakhs people were the beneficiaries. Both the abovesaid schemes have been integrated and beneficiaries have been brought under one head. However, beneficiaries have been provided with separate identity cards. 9. Material on record further discloses that the Principal Secretary to Government, Finance (Resources-II) Department, Chennai, has issued D.O. Letter No.50753/Res.II/2013, dated 11.09.2014, giving clarifications, for implementation of social security schemes. It is relevant to extract the clarifications:- D.O. Letter No.50753/Res.II/2013, dated 11.09.2014 Dear Sir, Sub : Social Security Schemes – Sanction of Pensions under IGNOAP and CMUPT – Certain clarifications – Reg. Ref : 1.G.O.Ms.No.73, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 22-01-1962. 2. Letter No.7448/SW6/2008 dated 4-6-2008 from Spl. Commr. & Secretary, SW & NMP Department, Chennai-9. 3. Government of India Letter NO.J-11015/1/2012-NSAP, Ministry of Rural Development, dated 8-11-2012. 4. Your D.O. Letter No.Rev.Aud.5(1)/46607/2013, dated 28.08.2014. --------------- Your kind attention is invited to the reference 4th cited, wherein certain clarifications have been issued by you on the eligibility condition for IGNOAP and CMUPT as below: i. The eligibility condition for IGNOAP (Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme) is inclusion in BPL list. 4. Your D.O. Letter No.Rev.Aud.5(1)/46607/2013, dated 28.08.2014. --------------- Your kind attention is invited to the reference 4th cited, wherein certain clarifications have been issued by you on the eligibility condition for IGNOAP and CMUPT as below: i. The eligibility condition for IGNOAP (Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme) is inclusion in BPL list. It is immaterial whether they have son(s)/daughter(s) or they are supported or not by sons / daughter(s). it is further clarified that the conditions of destitute, as stipulated in State sponsored schemes, are no longer applicable to beneficiaries under old age pension because all the beneficiaries have since been transferred to IGNOAP(Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme). ii. Even if the beneficiaries under Chief Minister's Uzhavar Padukappu Thitta, (CMUPT) have son(s) / daughter (s), they are eligible provided the beneficiaries are not supported by sons(s) / daughters (s). 2. Your kind attention is invited to the reference 1st cited, wherein the eligibility condition for the State scheme among other things have been defined as 'destitute' for availing Social Security Pension. A destitute is also defined as a person without any income or source of income. This condition is not at all changed or diluted so far. However in the reference 2nd cited, it was clarified by the secretary, SW&NMP Department that eligibility under IGNOAP is 65 and above of age and failing within the BPL eligible under IGNOAP is 65 and above of age and falling within the BPL eligible list irrespective of the fact whether he has a son or not. This is applicable only to IGNOAP and not for the State schemes. 3. It is felt that such a broader definition amplifying the scope of such eligibility to State schemes as mentioned in your letter wilkl have a far reaching financial implication on the State budget. Your clarification that “it is further clarified that the conditions of destitute as stipulated in State sponsored schemes are no longer applicable to beneficiaries under Old Age Pension, because all the beneficiaries have since been transferred to IGNOAP” will bead to unrestricted application of eligibility criteria not contemplated by the State Government. I further invite your attention to the Government of India reference cited above wherein the number of eligible OAP under IGNOAP for the State of Tamil Nadu is frozen at 12,37,809 with effect from 8-11-2012. I further invite your attention to the Government of India reference cited above wherein the number of eligible OAP under IGNOAP for the State of Tamil Nadu is frozen at 12,37,809 with effect from 8-11-2012. However, the present number of persons availing OAP under this category in our State is 13,91,426 as on 2-9-2014. In the above Government of India's reference, it is further stated that in case “more than the estimated / approved number of beneficiaries are covered by any State under any of the pension scheme, the expenditure on excess number of beneficiaries will have to be met from State's own resources.” Therefore, it is amply clear that the number of beneficiaries under Old Age Pension in our State is much higher than the Government of India's stipulated ceiling and State is fully meeting this extra cost. Under these circumstances, applying the relaxed norms of Government of India over-riding the State Government norms not correct because, the new beneficiaries added as relaxed GoI norms will not be funded by GoI, but only be fully funded by State Government. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that the State Government has specifically stipulated the condition 'destitute' for the reason that those who do not have income or source of income alone need such support under this scheme. It cannot be applied to all BPL families as many of them still avail other Government loan and other supports to improve their income. As they have capacity to earn additional income with Government support, Social Security Pension is not an appropriate instrument of financial support. Further, I would state that the list of BPL families available with the Rural Development and Municipal Administration Departments at present is not accurate and updated. 4. For the reasons explained above, the dilution of the eligibility norms of State Government by permitting all BPL families under OAP without any restriction like 'destitute' as indicated in your letter need to be withdrawn. As the number of beneficiaries has already exceeded the ceiling stipulated by Government of India, any new sanctions will have to be only with reference to the State norms, as the norms for the eligibility in relation to OAP by State Government is not yet revised. As the number of beneficiaries has already exceeded the ceiling stipulated by Government of India, any new sanctions will have to be only with reference to the State norms, as the norms for the eligibility in relation to OAP by State Government is not yet revised. This is also applicable in the case of CMUPT as the beneficiaries under these schemes are funded by the State Government resources and the eligibility criteria has in no way been modified by the Government. 5. Therefore, I request that the above circular may immediately be revisited and any new sanction or the eligibility norms of the existing beneficiaries under scrutiny shall be made only with reference to the norms defining the term 'destitute' besides other eligibility criteria.” 10. Record of proceedings shows that writ appeal was listed on 14.12.2012. Thereafter, based on the observations made in the Court, the District Collector, Madurai, in his proceedings dated 15.12.2014, has recorded as follows:- “The Hon'ble Court took exception to the denial of Old Age Pension to a 74 years old man having left to lurch uncared for by this three sons and further added that had there been a daughter, the petitioner would not be facing ostracized and left uncared for The Hon'ble Court further observed that pension should not be denied to him on flimsy grounds. The Hon'ble Court adjourned the matter to 22.12.2014 under the caption 'for orders' for passing orders on the writ appeal and in the meanwhile directed the respondents to consider the petition with reference to rules and to grant him pension. Hence, I request you to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Learned Single Judge and the observations made by the Hon'ble Division Bench for the purpose sanction of Old Age Pension and send me a report to enable me to file the same before the Hon'ble Division Bench.” 11. Subsequently, on 17.12.2014, the Regional Deputy Tahsildar, Thirupparankundram Taluk, has conducted an enquiry on the petition of the respondent. He has stated that respondent was not residing in the address given in his petition. He is residing nearer to that place, with his son Rajendran. Respondent's wife expired 27 years ago. He has three sons. Elder son is in Chandrapalayam. Second son is residing in Tirupur, and third son is residing near Madurai South Gate. He has stated that respondent was not residing in the address given in his petition. He is residing nearer to that place, with his son Rajendran. Respondent's wife expired 27 years ago. He has three sons. Elder son is in Chandrapalayam. Second son is residing in Tirupur, and third son is residing near Madurai South Gate. As per the enquiry conducted by the Regional Deputy Tahsildar, Thirupparankundram Taluk, all the three sons are labourers (coolies) and earning a low income, which is not even sufficient, to maintain their respective families. Enquiry revealed that respondent is not physically fit, to do any work. There is nobody to maintain him or render financial assistance, for his living. His name is not found in the below poverty list. Village Administrative Officer and Revenue Inspector of the village, where the respondent is residing, have given similar report. 12. On the basis of the above reports, a recommendation has been made by the Regional Deputy Tahsildar, Thirupparankundram Taluk, Village Administrative Officer and Revenue Inspector, to the effect that, on re-enquiry, it is found that the respondent has no support, from his sons, and since the respondent is living in indigent circumstances and though his name is not included in the below poverty list, old age pension can be granted, subject to the ratification of the Government. On the above reports and recommendations, the Tahsildar, Thirupparankundram Taluk, has observed that though under the Hon'ble Chief Minister Uzhavar Paadhukaappu Thittam(CMUPT), persons above 60 years, with no working capacity and no support from a son or daughter, are entitled to old age pension and though the respondent is not a registered member in the below poverty list, pension cannot be granted, under the abovesaid (CMPT) scheme. However, by observing that the respondent is entitled to old age pension, under Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme(IGNOAPS), as he was above 60 years, and taking note of the reports and recommendations, the Tahsildar, Thirupparankundram Taluk, cancelled the previous order, dated 20.06.2014, impugned in W.P(MD)No. 15098 of 2014, and issued revised orders in Roc.No.3335/2014/F, dated 18.12.2014, granting old age pension, to the respondent, from December 2014 @ Rs.1,000/- per month, until death of the respondent, subject to the following conditions:- “(a) If it is found that old age pension was permitted, on the basis of fake evidence or false information, this order would not only be cancelled, but also the old age pension granted would be recovered. (b) In the event of rejection by the Commissioner of Madurai Corporation, that the applicant is in the below poverty list, old age pension granted would be stopped, however, the amount granted would be recovered with interest rate determined by the Government. (c) In the event of rejection of ratification proposal by the Government, old age pension granted would be stopped, however, the amount granted would be recovered with interest rate determined by the Government.” 13. When the appeal came up for further hearing, Mr. A.K. Baskara Pandian, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the Government have issued further orders, modifying the norms, for all the Social Security Schemes namely, old age pension etc. 14. Material on record discloses that the respondent has applied for grant of old age pension in the year 2013, but no action was taken. Therefore, he had filed W.P(MD)No.17053 of 2013, in which, permission has been granted to the respondent, to prefer a fresh representation and that the Tahsildar, Thirupparankundram Taluk, has been directed to consider the same. Citing two reasons, representation has been rejected, viz., (i)name of the petitioner is not included in below poverty list; and (ii)he is living with the support of his elder son. That was the then report of the Revenue Inspector, based on which, Tahsildar, Thirupparankundram Taluk, Madurai District, has passed the rejection order, dated 20.06.2014. Citing two reasons, representation has been rejected, viz., (i)name of the petitioner is not included in below poverty list; and (ii)he is living with the support of his elder son. That was the then report of the Revenue Inspector, based on which, Tahsildar, Thirupparankundram Taluk, Madurai District, has passed the rejection order, dated 20.06.2014. When the said order, was put to challenge in W.P(MD)No.15098 of 2014, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Court has clearly observed, that the authorities, have failed to examine, as to whether the respondent, had any source of income, or supported by his sons, and that the rejection was on the sole ground, that he was residing with his elder son. The Writ Court has also found that non inclusion of his name in below poverty list, cannot be put against him, by the officials, because, it is the duty of the revenue officials, to have brought him in the said list. Writ Court has also observed that it is not known, as to what basis, the below poverty list was prepared, and that the procedure for preparation of such list, had not been referred to, in the impugned proceedings, dated 20.06.2014. 15. Now, as per the report of the Regional Deputy Tahsildar and the Village Administrative Officer and the Revenue Inspector, respondent is living in indigent circumstances. Respondent's sons themselves are working as labourers (Coolies) and even their meagre income, is not sufficient, to maintain their respective families. It is the categorical report that respondent cannot do any work. When he appeared before this Court in person, he was fragile, weak and that his very physical appearance prima facie, indicated the effects of poverty, old age, dependability. 16. When instructions have been issued by the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration in Roc. Ir. No. rev. Aud. 5(1)46607/2013, dated 09.07.2014, to verify the details of the beneficiaries, under the schemes, the Tahsildar, Social Security Scheme, Thirupparankundram Taluk, Village Administrative Officer and the Revenue Inspector, ought to have conducted proper verification, as to who are all the persons, to be included, in the below poverty list, so as to enable them, to get the benefits, from the Social Security Schemes. It is also the duty of the state machinery, to make known the Social Security Schemes, to all those persons, who may satisfy the eligibility criteria. 17. It is also the duty of the state machinery, to make known the Social Security Schemes, to all those persons, who may satisfy the eligibility criteria. 17. In a country like, India, where there are more poverty stricken people, Social Security Schemes, should reach the beneficiaries. Weeding out ineligible persons, from the scheme, for reduction of expenditure alone, is appreciable, but that alone is not sufficient. A bonafide and sincere exercise should also be made, to include persons, “who are eligible, and omitted to be included”, in the list of beneficiaries, under the Social Security Schemes, stated supra. When illiteracy and ignorance is prevalent in most of our villages, due to lack of education, awareness, the revenue officials ought not to have expected to a person, aged about 74 years, to make a request, for inclusion of his name, in the below poverty list, which is one of the criteria, to claim old age pension. They have failed to make an assessment, insofar as the respondent, is concerned. When the Tahsildar, Thirupparankundram Taluk, issued a proceedings in Roc.No. 3335/2014/F, dated 18.12.2014, he has once again mentioned that though the respondent is not included in the list of below poverty, his case can be considered from December 2014. When the Writ Court in the order, dated 11.09.2014, has indicated that the respondent, cannot be blamed, for non-inclusion of his name, in the below poverty list, the revenue officials could have rectified their mistake, which still appears to continue, when proceedings dated 18.12.2014, have been issued granting pension from December 2014. 18. From the perusal of the proceedings in Roc. Ir. No. rev. Aud. 5(1)46607/2013, dated 09.07.2014 of the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai, addressed to all the District Collectors, it could be deduced that the Government, have issued G.O.Ms.No.73, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 22.01.1962 and that old age pension scheme, is in vogue, for several decades, which is also supported by the Madras Old Age Pension Rules, 1962. Had the revenue officials, included the name of the respondent, in the below poverty list, at the right time, he would have been paid old age pension, from the date of completion of 60 years, subject to satisfying other eligibility criteria, for sanction of pension, under the Old Age Pension Scheme. Had the revenue officials, included the name of the respondent, in the below poverty list, at the right time, he would have been paid old age pension, from the date of completion of 60 years, subject to satisfying other eligibility criteria, for sanction of pension, under the Old Age Pension Scheme. The Government have issued orders, in Letter Ms.No.25, dated 17.04.2015, amending rule 5 of the Madras Old Age Pension Rules, 1962, which is extracted hereunder:- “The following definition of 'destitute' shall be substituted to Rule 5 of the Madras Pension Rules: A “Destitute” is a person, (a) without any income or source of income, (b) without any income or source of income and owning fixed assets valuing less than Rs.50,000/-, who have no relatives of 20 years of age and over of the following categories:- i) Son: ii) Son's son; and iii) husband/wife and other related persons, who normally live together; Provided that a person will be deemed to be a destitute if all the relatives falling within the categories specified above are (a) themselves below poverty line, such a fact being proved to the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority; or (b) continuously missing and the sanctioning authority has satisfied him/herself by such enquiry as he/she deems necessary that the relatives are so missing.” Consequently, the Government, have also issued, letter, dated 21.04.2015, to all the District Collectors. 19. The fact that even now, all the sons of the respondent are working as Coolies (Labourers), shows that their economic condition. Therefore, at the time, when the respondent attained 60 years of age, it would not be better than the present condition. During the course of hearing, it was also submitted that the respondent does not own any lands. Thus, the name of the respondent ought to have been included, either under the Old Age Pension Scheme or under the Hon'ble Chief Minister Uzhavar Paadhukaappu Thittam(CMUPT), under which, a person aged above 60 years, without any working capacity and not supported by a son or daughter, is eligible to be registered under the Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme(IGNOAPS). Here again, there is a failure on the part of the revenue officials, to bring him, under the abovesaid scheme. Here again, there is a failure on the part of the revenue officials, to bring him, under the abovesaid scheme. When it is the duty of the revenue officials, to enlist the beneficiaries, taking into consideration their economic status, or in other words, inclusion in 'below poverty list', so as to enable them, to avail the benefits, merely because, the respondent was not registered under any of the schemes, this Court is not inclined to deny the benefits, to which, the beneficiary is entitled to, as per the scheme, as on date of completion of 60 years. 20. From the material on record, it could be deduced that the respondent had completed 60 years long back. For the mistake of the revenue officials, in not including the name of the respondent in the below poverty list, the petitioner cannot be denied old age pension from the date of his entitlement. Thus from the above discussion, we are of the view that the respondent is entitled to old age pension. from the date on which, he attained 60 years. The revenue officials are directed to include the name of the petitioner in the below poverty list. 21. Accordingly, We direct the appellants to pay the respondent, the arrears of old age pension, from the date on which, respondent has completed the age of 60 years to till date, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellants are also directed to continue payment of old age pension, periodically, at Rs. 1,000/-, or on the revised rates, as per the Social Security Scheme, for old age pension. The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, M.P(MD)Nos.1 of 2014 and 1 of 2015 are closed.