WP/10811/2024 of RAMAYEE @ RAMAL Vs THE DIRECTOR on 26 October 2026

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.04.2022.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent.

3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she was the first wife of the deceased Nachi and that out of their wedlock, they have got two children. However, the respondents have neither paid family pension nor settled the terminal benefits to the petitioner. On the other hand, one Mohanambal, who is allegedly the daughter of the petitioner's husband through one Palanimammal, has been granted such benefits.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the very conduct of the respondents in denying family pension to the petitioner is in contravention of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, and hence, prays for a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner.

5. At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent would contend that initially, the petitioner's husband, who was employed as a Sanitary Worker, had nominated the petitioner as his nominee. However, on 20.03.2001, he submitted a request to cancel the previous nomination and to include one Mohanambal as his only heir and nominee to receive the Death-cum-Retirement Benefits. Subsequently, he was superannuated on 30.06.2005. At the time of superannuation, he submitted a photograph taken with Palaniammal and declared her as his wife and Mohanambal as his daughter under the column of Family members. Based on such declaration, a pension proposal was submitted to the authorities concerned, and a monthly pension of Rs.1,716/- was sanctioned to Nachi. After his demise, family pension was sanctioned to Palaniammal, who subsequently passed away. Therefore, it is the contention of the fifth respondent that if at all the petitioner has got any grievance, she must approach the Civil Court.

6. In addition to the above contention, the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4 would contend that they have settled the family pension strictly in accordance with the pension proposal sanctioned by the authorities concerned, and that they have no role in deciding the persons who are entitled to receive the pension. Hence, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side and perused the material available on record.

8. It is the specific submission of the petitioner that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Nachi and that her marriage was never dissolved by divorce. To substantiate the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order passed by the learned District Munsif at Kangeyam in O.S.No.249 of 1999, dated 19.10.2001, wherein the deceased Nachi was directed to pay a sum of Rs.770/- as monthly maintenance from October 2000 to the petitioner. Therefore, as rightly contended by the petitioner’s counsel, the fifth respondent cannot dispute the status of the petitioner as the legally wedded wife of the deceased Nachi. However, it is their case that Nachi subsequently submitted another application along with photograph taken with Palaniammal, representing her as his wife. When such a request was made, the authorities concerned had a duty to ascertain whether the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased Nachi had been dissolved or not.

9. In the case in hand, admittedly, such an exercise was not done by the authorities concerned, which reflects a blatant violation of the Rules and a callous attitude on the part of the respondents. The callous attitude of certain staff members working under the fifth respondent cannot defeat the statutory rights of the petitioner, who is the legally wedded wife. It is also relevant to note that whenever a request is made for nomination, according to the Pension Rules, such nomination must be in favour of a family member. In the case in hand, since the first marriage between the deceased Nachi and the petitioner still subsisted, the subsequent marriage with Palaniammal was void ab initio. Hence, the said Palaniammal cannot be construed as a family member under the Pension Rules.

10. In such view of the above factual position, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner is entitled to have family pension. While considering the representation, it is noted that she has also claimed terminal benefits of her husband. However, in the nomination form, one Mohanambal, the daughter of the deceased through her second wife, Palaniammal, was named as the nominee. Accordingly, the terminal benefits amounting to Rs.86,181/- have already been settled as Death-cum-Retirement benefits to Mohanambal.

11. In such view of the above position, this Court is of the firm view that, if at all the petitioner has got any grievance, she may approach the appropriate Civil Court against Mohanambal for payment of terminal benefits in accordance with law. However, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to family pension. Taking into consideration of the peculiar circumstances of this case, such family pension is directed to pay to the petitioner from the date of death of one Palaniammal [alleged second wife]. In view of the same, the fifth respondent is directed to send a proposal to the authorities concerned for sanction of family pension to the petitioner. On receipt of proposal, the 5th respondent is directed to sanction pension along with arrears as indicated above. The aforesaid exercise is directed to be completed within a period of twelve(12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

12. With the above directions, this Writ Petition Stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 26-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes ms

To

1. The Director Directorate of Town Panchayat, 7th and 8th Floor, Administrative Campus, Chennai - 600 028.

2. The Director Local Fund Audit, No. 571, Officers Building, Veterinary Hospital Campus, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.

3. The District Collector Tiruppur Collector Office,Tiruppur.

4. The Assistant Director Town Panchayat, Collector Office Campus, Erode.

5. The Executive Officer Muthur Town Panchayat, Muthur, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District - 638 105.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. ms W.P.No.10811 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.34883 of 2024 26-10-2026