Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1800 (MAD)

Sundarammal v. District Collector, Ramanathapuram

2019-07-03

R.SURESH KUMAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to grant old age pension granted upto 21.07.2015 vide the petitioner's representation dated 24.07.2017 within the time stipulated time as fixed by this Court.) 1. The prayer in this writ petition is for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to grant old age pension granted upto 21.07.2015, vide the petitioner's representation dated 24.07.2017. 2. Heard Mr. S. Sivaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner is a deserted woman and no one is there to look after her. She applied for Old Age Pension and considering her eligibility, such pension was sanctioned on 24.11.2006 and from such sanction, she had been paid that pension till 2015. Unfortunately and shockingly, the said pension was stopped abruptly in 2015. When that was enquired, the petitioner came to know only later on that, pension was stopped abruptly on the reason that, the respondent Department allegedly found that the petitioner was no more and in view of the said reason, the pension so far sanctioned and paid to the petitioner, was stopped. 4. However, the fact remains that, the petitioner is very much alive and therefore, once again the petitioner made a request to the respondent Department on various dates and in this regard, the petitioner was able to get information under Right to Information Act from the respondent as to the reason why the pension was abruptly stopped. The information under the Right to Information Act given by the respondent revealed that since the petitioner was treated dead and her name was accordingly deleted, the pension had been stopped and if the petitioner is aggrieved, she may apply afresh and get remedy. Therefore, the petitioner had given the representation dated 24.07.2017 finally, to reconsider her case and sanction the pension. However, the same has not been considered. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. Therefore, the petitioner had given the representation dated 24.07.2017 finally, to reconsider her case and sanction the pension. However, the same has not been considered. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. When the said writ petition came up for hearing before this Court on 19.06.2019, this Court, after having found this nefarious act on the part of the respondents in stopping the pension on the ground that the petitioner is no more, despite the fact that the petitioner is very much alive, has passed the following order:- “In this matter, the petitioner, being an age old lady without any one to look after her, was already getting old age pension and the same was abruptly stopped from 21.07.2015 on the ground that the petitioner died. 2. However, the fact remains that, the petitioner is very much alive and she came to know the reason of stopping the old age pension only thereafter that, somebody made a false information/communication about the petitioner's life and based on which, wrongly the revenue authorities abruptly stopped the old age pension to the petitioner. 3. In this regard, the petitioner had given request under Right to Information Act and obtained information from the third respondent office, which reads thus: “TAMIL” and yet another information was given by the third respondent office on 15.04.2016, which also reads thus: “TAMIL” 4. Thereafter, the petitioner has made a request on 24.07.2017 to the first respondent seeking restoration of the old age pension to the petitioner and the same also has not been considered. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court with this writ petition. However, when the case is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the representation of the petitioner dated 24.07.2017 would be considered on merits. 5. This Court is not inclined to accept the said stand taken by the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.07.2017. 6. The petitioner cannot live at the mercy of the unscrupulous officers of the respondent Department. 5. This Court is not inclined to accept the said stand taken by the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.07.2017. 6. The petitioner cannot live at the mercy of the unscrupulous officers of the respondent Department. Since the petitioner is an age old woman and was getting old age pension, which is one of the welfare scheme being undertaken by the Government to the welfare of the aged people, the same had been abruptly stopped for unjustifiable reason without even verifying the fact, by conducting the primary enquiry in the village concerned, where the petitioner resides, whether the petitioner died or not. This kind of careless action on the part of the respondent Department is not at all appreciable. Therefore, this Court, in order to get report as to what happened actually in this mater and where went wrong by whom it is occurred, wants a report from the second respondent. Hence the second respondent shall file a report as to the issue raised in this writ petition by way of affidavit or counter affidavit before this Court during the next hearing date. For the said purpose, post the matter on 03.07.2019.” 6. Pursuant to the said order, when the case is taken up for hearing today i.e. on 03.07.2019, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has produced an order passed by the first respondent/Tahsildar dated 21.06.2019, which reads thus:- “TAMIL” 7. The learned Government Advocate has also produced the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, wherein the following averments have been made by the second respondent:- “2. I submit that the writ petitioner Tmt. Sundarammal W/o Karuppaiah aged about 65 years residing at T. Vallakulam village, Punavasal Post, Kamuthi Taluk, a deserted wife had been sanctioned old age pension vide OAP A/c No 22/IG/4802 dated 24.11.2006 and since then she has been disbursed monthly old age pension regularly till June 2015. 3. I submit that on perusing the data available in Old Age Pension Back Office application in online, the name of the writ petitioner has been deleted erroneously while deleting the death cases. I therefore submit that this error did not take place by any wilful intention. At that time the Computer Operator was appointed through outsourcing only. The said computer operator did a mistake and made entry that she was died. 4. I therefore submit that this error did not take place by any wilful intention. At that time the Computer Operator was appointed through outsourcing only. The said computer operator did a mistake and made entry that she was died. 4. I further submit that considering the prayer of the writ petitioner, present Tahsildar, Social Security Scheme, Kamuthi Taluk made enquiry on 21.06.2019. Enquiry reveals that the writ petitioner is residing at T. Vallakulam Village in Kamuthi Taluk and she is a deserted wife and she deserves to consider for old age pension under Social Security Scheme. Based on the prayer of the writ petitioner and above enquiry, the writ petitioner has now been sanctioned Old Age Pension under Indhra Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme vide order R. Dis. No. B2/7187/2017 dated 21.06.2019 and Old Age Pension to the writ petitioner will be disbursed from this month of June 2019 regularly.” 8. The reason cited by the second respondent at paragraph No. 3 of the counter affidavit that the deletion of the name of the petitioner was erroneously made while deleting the death cases through the Computer Operator, who was appointed through outsourcing, cannot be a reason to stop the Old Age Pension and the said reason cannot be accepted as a genuine reason by this Court. The reason being that, the Tahsildar, who is the official concerned, has to verify the genuinenity of the claim made by any beneficiary of any Government Scheme and if at all any undeserved person makes application, that should be enquired and decided then and there for rejecting the same. At the same time, if deserved persons make application, that also, should be enquired and in this case, on satisfaction that the applicant is deserved to get the benefit of the Government Scheme, the authority concerned, namely, the second respondent should have made a proper order. 9. Here, in the case on hand, if the petitioner was sanctioned Old Age Pension from 24.11.2006 and the same was given till June 2015 uninterruptedly, and the same was abruptly stopped on the alleged reason that the beneficiary is no more, those issues should have been verified by the second respondent, after conducting an enquiry by getting a report from the Village Administrative Officer concerned. A living person cannot be treated as a dead person without having any evidence. A living person cannot be treated as a dead person without having any evidence. The reason cited now by the second respondent is that, the name of the petitioner has been inadvertently deleted by the temporary Computer Operator appointed through outsourcing Agency while deleting the death cases. It is a classic case, where the Governmental authorities/respondents herein are acting upon recklessly or carelessly in deciding the issue of this nature such as providing welfare measures to needy people, as per the policy of the Government. 10. Therefore, this kind of recklessness cannot be easily accepted, as the present reason given by the second respondent that, by inadvertently the temporary Computer Operator deleted the name of the petitioner as the dead person, is a very lame excuse. Assuming that the reason can be accepted because of the inadvertence as claimed by them, it is not understandable that when the petitioner sought for information under Right to Information Act, the very same second respondent office has given information on 15.04.2016 stating that it has been wrongly stated as if the petitioner dead. By stating the same under the Right to Information Act, the second respondent also stated that the petitioner can make a fresh application to get pension, which has been stopped already. 11. Thereafter, the petitioner made a fresh application on 24.07.2017 by registered post on 25.07.2017 to the first respondent. The said representation also seems to have not been considered by any of the respondents and it has been kept in cold storage. Therefore, the reason "inadvertent deletion" claimed by the second respondent at paragraph No. 3 of the counter affidavit filed today i.e. on 03.07.2019 as extracted above, is a flimsy reason and an after thought, only to satisfy this Court and therefore, the said reason cannot be accepted by this Court. 12. Moreover, all these failures continuously noticed from the respondents would coherently go to show that, the respondents, especially, the second respondent office very recklessly dealt with this issue and the deserted old age pensioner, who is fully dependant on the old age pension given by the Government through welfare scheme, had been driven from pillar to post for no fault of her and the respondents never cared about her well being for all these years i.e. from 2015, as the pension was stopped admittedly in June 2015. 13. 13. Therefore, this Court while expressing its anguish, also wants to give a direction to take a remedial action for the loss and sufferings sustained by the petitioner for four years, without getting any money from the Government. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (i) that the proceedings issued by the Tahsildar/the second respondent, dated 21.06.2019 sanctioning pension to the petitioner prospectively from 21.06.2019 is hereby recorded and the same shall be directed to be paid continuously to the petitioner. (ii) The respondents are directed to calculate the arrears of pension payable to the petitioner from 2015 July onwards till June 2019 and pay the arrears to the petitioner with 6% interest from the date of due till the date of payment within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) In order to compensate the injury caused to the petitioner, this Court directs the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The aforesaid orders shall be complied with within the aforesaid period. No costs. 14. For reporting compliance, post the matter on 29.07.2019.