(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings in No.P22/2/12228124/ADK dated 27.03.2024 passed by the First Respondent, whereby the Petitioner’s application for grant of Family Pension was rejected, and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary; and consequently direct the Respondents to sanction Family Pension to the Petitioner together with all consequential monetary and attendant benefits, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.)

1. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:

                   “calling for the records relating to the proceedings in No.P22/2/12228124/ADK dated 27.03.2024 passed by the First Respondent, whereby the Petitioner’s application for grant of Family Pension was rejected, and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary; and consequently direct the Respondents to sanction Family Pension to the Petitioner together with all consequential monetary and attendant benefits, within a time frame to be fixed by this Honble Court.”

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

                   2.1 On 05.10.1987, the petitioner’s late husband, K.Maniarasu, was appointed as a Gardener in the 3rd respondent college, and his services were regularized on 21.12.1988. He rendered unblemished service until his demise on 04.09.2019. Subsequently, the 4th respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.171 of 2020 before the XX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, seeking a declaration as the legally wedded wife of the deceased and a direction to issue a legal heirship certificate to her and her children. The petitioner was impleaded as a party defendant in the said suit.

                   2.2 Pending the suit, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, where a compromise was recorded on 07.11.2022 and the parties agreed that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and that a legal heirship certificate would be issued accordingly. Pursuant to this order, the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Tiruvallikeni Taluk, issued a legal heirship certificate on 27.12.2022, declaring the petitioner, the children of the deceased, and the mother of the deceased as the legal heirs, omitting the name of the 4th respondent.

                   2.3 On 12.01.2023, the petitioner applied for family pension and attendant benefits. Although the 2nd respondent forwarded the application to the 1st respondent with a positive recommendation, the 1st respondent rejected the petitioner’s claim on 27.03.2024, erroneously treating the petitioner as the second wife. Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

4. The 1st respondent had rejected the petitioner's application for family pension and other attendant benefits on the ground that the petitioner is the second wife and therefore, in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, pension cannot be disbursed to her. Fallacy in the order is evident from the fact that the authority has not taken into consideration the compromise memo and the decree passed thereunder in O.S.No.71 of 2020 on the file of the XX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

5. Under this memo of compromise, the rival claimant viz. Umadevi, who had filed the suit along with the son of the deceased against the petitioner herein, the daughter of the deceased and others, has clearly stated that she would not claim any right as the wife of the deceased Maniarasu, and that she does not have any share in the service benefits and immovable property belonging to the deceased Maniarasu, and that she is not entitled to get a legal heirship certificate and that, she does not have the right to declare herself as the legal heir of the deceased Maniarasu, thereby acknowledging the fact that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the said deceased Maniarasu. In fact, even in the short cause title, the petitioner herein has been described as the wife of the deceased Maniarasu.

6. For better understanding, the relevant portion of the memo of compromise entered into between the parties is extracted as under:-

                   “MEMO OF COMPROMISE DEED

                   The Plaintiffs, the first and fourth Defendant do hereby mutually arrived at a settlement which got reduced into writing and a compromise was arrived and the parties do hereby agree for a decree to be passed in the above suit in the following terms and conditions.

                   1. Late Maniarasu who was working in D.G.Vaishnav College at Chennai and he died when he was in service and The second Plaintiff, M.Thamizharasu is entitled to the compassionate appointment benefit after the death of Late Maniarasu and the first Plaintiff and the first and fourth Defendants have no objection for the second Plaintiff getting the compassionate appointment.

                   2. The second Plaintiff, the first Defendant and the fourth Defendant are equally entitled for 1/3rd each undivided share in the property belonging to Late Maniarasu at Old No.3/4, New No.240, Ayothikuppam Nagar, Thiruvallikeni, Chennai – 600 005.

                   3. The second Plaintiff, the first Defendant and the fourth Defendant are equally entitled for 1/3rd in the death benefits and service benefits including PF, Gratuity and other retirement and service benefits belonging to Late Maniarasu receivable from the Management of D.G. Vaishnav College, Chennai.

                   4. The fourth Defendant is entitled to get the pension benefits of Late Maniarasu receivable from the Management of D.G. Vaishnav College, Chennai from the date of his death and receivable in the further either in monthly pension or in one lump sum payable by the Management.

                   5. It was mutually agreed between the parties that the 4 th Defendants Mrs.Mahalakshmi will be declared as the wife of the deceased Maniarasu.

                   6. It was mutually agreed between the parties that the legal heir certificate of the deceased Maniarasu will be issued in favour of the 2 nd Plaintiff as the son of Late Maniarasu, 1 s t Defendant as the daughter of Late Maniarasu and the 4th Defendant as the wife of Late Maniarasu.

                   7. It was mutually agreed between the parties that the first Plaintiff B.Umadevi will not claim any right as wife of late Marniarasu and she will not be declared as the wife of late Maniarasu and she is not entitled to any benefits accrued either from the service benefits or share in the immovable property belonging to Late Maniarasu and she is also not entitled to get an entry in the legal heir certificate of Late Maniarasu. The parties mutually agree that the D2 and D3 are not added as parties to the above compromise and they were set exparte.”

7. The petitioner herein is the 4th defendant in the said suit. However, all of these facts have been ignored and overlooked by the 1st respondent, which has led to the issuance of the erroneous order. In the said order, it has also been stated that an order relaxing the provisions of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules is required.

8. This Court is at a loss to understand as to why there must be a relaxation of Pension rules for the disbursement of the family pension in favour of the wife of the deceased employee.

9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 27.03.2024 passed by the 1st respondent, rejecting the petitioner’s claim for family pension and other attendant benefits, is hereby set aside.

10. The 2nd respondent is directed to take note of the decree passed in O.S.No.71 of 2020 on the file of the XX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, wherein, the parties have entered into compromise, in and by which, it was agreed that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Maniarasu and that she will be entitled to get the pension benefits of the deceased Maniarasu receivable from the 3rd respondent and shall forward the proposal in this regard to the 1st respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the 1st respondent, upon receipt of such proposal, shall process the family pension and issue necessary orders sanctioning family pension in favour of the petitioner.

11. With the above directions and observation, this Writ petition stands allowed. No costs.