WP/2322/2023 of C.Mercy Vs The Principal Accountant General A and E Tamilnadu on 22 September 2026

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned rejection order dated 22.11.2022.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 & 3.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s father is one C.P.Chakkuni and he worked as a Naick in Tamil Nadu Special Police, III Battalion, Avadi, Chennai. He retired from service on 31.05.1979. Thereafter, while he was receiving pension, he died on 22.04.2012. After his demise, his wife also died in the month of January, 2014. The petitioner is the daughter of said C.P.Chakkuni and she is suffering from mental disability. When the petitioner has given an application for claiming pension, the same was rejected by quoting Rule 49(6) of the “Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978” [hereinafter called “Pension Rules”] on the premise that the petitioner did not suffer any mental disability at the age of 25, but, from the age of 29. He would contend that according to the Pension Rules, there is no expression prohibition for having pension on account of manifestation of mental retardedness, even after attaining the age of 25. Having no express prohibition, the reason assigned by the Authority that in the absence of manifestation of mental ailment, at the age of 25 for rejecting the family Pension is in contravention to the Rule. It is also the contention of the petitioner that even according to the Regional Medical Board opinion dated 2019, the petitioner was suffering from chronic schizophrenia since 5 years. Hence, prayed to allow this writ Petition. 4(a).Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, and would submit that the petitioner was born on 24.09.1984 and according to the opinion of the Doctors, only at the age of 30, the petitioner suffered chronic schizophrenia. Therefore, she is not eligible for pension.

(b) . The learned Standing Counsel would further contend that, in order to have a pension under Rule 49(6), the claimant must obtain the certificate from the medical officer not below the rank of Civil surgeon. He would further submit that the Guardian representing the petitioner has already moved an application before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in WP. (MD).No.11972 of 2021 and has got direction to get the Guardianship certificate. The learned Standing counsel would further submit that for the payment of Family Pension, beyond 25 years till her lifetime, the claimant’s disability should be such that it renders her inability to earn livelihood even after attaining the age of 25 years. Since the above criteria has not been fulfilled, the petitioner is not eligible for pension.

5. The said contention was also reiterated by the learned Additional Government Pleader and would submit that they have received an application from the petitioner through her sister I.Rosely for family pension as she was unmarried and mentally ill. They admit the averment made in paragraph 3 of the affidavit and they have not disputed about the date of retirement of the petitioner’s father. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that with regard to the Pension, the first respondent is the competent authority and that there is no delay on their part in considering the petitioner’s claim. It was the first respondent who rejected her request quoting the Rule provision. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

7. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the respondent is that, the manifestation of mental retardednes occurred to the petitioner at the age of 29. They contend that, in order to have a family pension, such manifestation ought to have been occurred on or before the age of 25. In the case in hand, the date of birth of the petitioner viz., 24.09.1984, is not in dispute. If that being the case, as per the Medical report dated 23.09.2019, the manifestation of chronic schizophrenia had occurred to the petitioner at the age of 29 years.

8. Now the point to be considered in the present writ petition is, whether any manifestation of mental retardedness, after the age of 25 years would prohibit from getting family Pension. In this regard, this Court deems it appropriate to extract Rule 49(6) of the Pension Rules. “49.Family pension:- …….

6. The period for which the family pension is payable shall be as follows:

(i) .......

(ii) ......

(iii) In the case of an unmarried daughter, until she attains the age of 1 [twenty-five years] or until she gets married whichever is earlier: [Provided that if the son or daughter of a Government servant including the son or daughter, born after retirement from the marriage solemnized before or after retirement of a Government Servant, is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind [including mentally retarded] or is physically crippled or disabled, whether such handicap manifest before or after retirement or death while in service of a Government servant so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of [21 years] in the case of the sons and [30 years] in the case of the daughter, the family pension shall be payable to such son or daughter for life subject to the following conditions, namely:-

(i) if such son or daughter is one among two or more children of the Government servant, the family pension shall be initially payable to the minor children in the order set out in clause (iii) of subrule (8) until the last minor child attain the age of 25 and thereafter the family pension shall be resumed in favour of the son or daughter suffering from disorder or disability of mind or who is physically crippled or disabled and shall be payable to him/her for life.

(ii) if there are more than one such son or daughter suffering from disorder or disability of mind including mentally retarded or who are physically cropped or disabled, the family pension shall be paid,- (a) in the order of their birth, irrespective of the sex of the child and the immediate younger of him or her will be eligible for family pension only after the elder above him or her becomes ineligible for family pension.

(b) in cases of twin children to such twin children in equal shares. In the event of any of such children ceasing to be eligible for family pension his or her share of family pension will become payable to the other such child and when both such children become ineligible for family pension the family pension will become payable to the next eligible child or twin children, as the case may be;

(iii) the family pension shall be paid to such son or daughter through the guardian as if he or she were a minor.

(iv) before allowing the family pension for life to any such son or daughter the sanctioning authority shall satisfy that the handicap is of such a nature as to prevent him or her from earning his or her livelihood and the same shall be evidenced by a certificate obtained from a medical officer not below the rank of a Civil Surgeon setting out, as far as possible the exact mental or physical condition of the child.

(v) the person receiving the family pension as guardian, or such son or daughter shall produce every three years a certificate from a medical officer not below the rank of a Civil Surgeon to the effect that he or she continues to suffer from disorder or disability of mind or continues to be physically crippled or disabled.

(vi) such daughter shall not be eligible for family pension from the date on which she gets married.

(vii) the family pension payable to such son or daughter shall be stopped if he or she starts earning his (or) her livelihood.

(viii) it shall be the duty of the guardian of such son or daughter to furnish every month to the Treasury or Bank, as the case may be a certificate to the effect that he or she has not started earning his or her livelihood; and in the case of such daughter that she has not yet married.

(ix) In the case of a mentally retarded son or daughter, the family pension shall be payable to a person nominated by the Government Servant or the pensioner as the case may be, and in case no such nomination has been furnished to the Head of Office by such Government Servant or pensioner during his life time, to the person nominated by the spouse of such Government servant of family pensioner, as the case may be, later on.” Upon reading the above provisions conjointly, this Court could not find any express prohibition of payment of pension on account of manifestation of mental illness after the age of 25 years.

9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the clarification issued by the Government on 13.09.2004, through which the learned counsel would submit that according to the Government clarification, if the manifestation of mental illness is after the age of 25 years, then they are not eligible for pension. Looking at the matter in a practical sense, the very pension was ordered to the mentally retarded person only on account of the fact that they

are not able to maintain themselves. When such sublime object was inherent in the section, the denial by referring the age is contrary to Rule.

10. Furthermore, the harmonious reading of proviso to Rule 49(6)(iii) along with Rule 49(6)(iii)(i) clearly vindicates the entitlement of the Pension even for the manifestation of mental retardedness after the age of 25 years. According to Rule 49(6)(iii)(i), even if the daughter manifest with mental ailment at the relevant point of time, namely before the age of 25 years, if there are other minor siblings younger than the mentally disabled persons, then they will have precedence over the mentally disabled person. During such period qua unless the last minor child of the deceased employee is attaining the age of 25 years, the mentally retarded daughter, though had mental illness even before the age of 25 years, will have no right to have pension, and her entitlement would come only after the last minor dependent completing the age of 25 years.

11. The above finding is vindicated by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in WA(MD).No.773 of 2026 [The Senior Accounts Officer Vs. N.S.Chandrasekaran and another]. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:- “9. The proviso makes it clear that, in the event of a son or daughter suffering from any mental disorder or disability, whether such handicap manifests before or after the retirement or death of a Government servant while in service, and renders him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of 25 years in the case of sons and, in the case of daughters, the family pension shall be payable to such son or daughter for life. Therefore, the impugned communication dated 12.07.2024, which states that manifestation of disability after 25 years does not entitle a person to family pension, in our view, reflects a total non-application of mind, as the Rule itself does not impose any such restriction. Merely on the basis of a query raised and answered in a Government letter dated 30.09.2004, the impugned order cannot be sustained. In fact, the letter merely records a clarification sought by the office of the Accountant General from the Government as to whether a handicapped son or daughter would be entitled to family pension for life in cases where the disability manifests after attaining the age of 25 years. The response merely records a confirmation of that presumption. Therefore, when a query has been raised and answered in a manner that is contrary to the statutory rule position, such a Government letter cannot be relied upon by the authorities to deny the benefit of family pension.”

12. In such view of the position, this Court finds no legal or factual basis to deny pension to the petitioner on account of the manifestation of mental disability after the age of 25 years. Accordingly, this Court is of the firm view that the rejection order passed by the respondent is liable to be interfered with.

13. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.11.2022 is hereby set aside and directed to pay pension along with arrears within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the prayer for disbursal of pension directly to the petitioner without insisting upon the Guardianship certificate cannot be granted, as the guardian could be an appropriate person to take care of the petitioner. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Collector has issued the Guardianship certificate to one I.Rosely, who is representing the petitioner in the writ petition. If her Guardianship period is lapsed, she is directed to approach the District Collector, who is the 3rd respondent herein and if any application received for extension of time, the same may be granted by the 3rd respondent in accordance with law and pass order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of such application. No costs. 22-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KMI To

1. The Principal Accountant General A and E Tamilnadu. No.361, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 018.

2. The Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police 3rd Battalion, Veerapuram Avadi, Chennai-600 055.

3. The District Collector, Tirunelveli. C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

KMI WP No. 2322 of 2023 22-09-2026