Mahalakshmi , Subapriya and Navodhiya (Subapriya and Navodhiya are represented by their mother and next friend Mahalakshmi) vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Division - I) Limited and Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Employee's Pension Fund Trust

P. Jyothimani, J.—Heard Mr. N. Balakrishnan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. M. Prakash, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, Mr. R. Singaravelan for the 3rd respondent and Mr. R. Manoharan, learned Government Advocate for the 4th respondent.

The first petitioner is the wife of Late Rengarajan. Rangarajan, while in service as Security Guard under the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation has died on 28.11.2003. It appears that the 1st petitioner''s husband has certain relationship with another lady before the marriage with the first petitioner. It is her case that after the marriage of the petitioner with her husband, her husband has no continuous relationship with the said lady. The service rendered by the first petitioner''s husband was pensionable and it is stated that the first and second respondents have paid the amount payable under the social security scheme, death compensation, gratuity, leave salary etc., recognizing the first petitioner as a legitimate wife and the first petitioner was paid pension from December 2004 till the end of February 2005, through Canara bank, Pudukkottai Branch. It was from 01.03.2005, the said payment of pension was abruptly stopped.

Therefore, the petitioner has filed the suit O.S. No. 136 of 2006 against the first and second respondents before the Principal District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai for a declaration that the first petitioner is the legitimate wife and second and third petitioners are their children and they are entitled to have the family pension, making the other lady as defendant in the said suit. The said suit was referred to Lakadalat and by consent of both parties the suit claim was settled and compromise decree was passed by the Court on 05.08.2006 declaring that the first petitioner is entitled to receive the family pension and it is the case of the petitioner that the first and second respondents have admitted the legal status of the petitioner and even after the decree has been passed, the first and second respondents have not paid the pension.

In those circumstances, the petitioner has made a representation along with a copy of the judgment passed by the civil Court to the first and second respondents. However, the first and second respondents have informed the petitioner that unless the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employee''s Pension Fund Trust, the 3rd respondent passes order, no steps will be taken.

In the meantime, the second respondent has filed the suit O.S. No. 188 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Pudukkottai on 04.12.2006 for an order of injunction against the petitioners from claiming family pension and the said suit filed by the second respondent is pending. It is admitted that the dispute between the 1st and 2nd respondents and the 3rd respondent as to whether the pension has to be paid by the first and second respondents or the third respondent is resolved as on date and the third respondent has to pay the pension.

In the said circumstances, the claim of the first petitioner as legitimate wife of the employee of the respondent corporation has been accepted as per the decree of the civil Court and the third respondent has the liability to pay the pension. Inspite of application filed by the first petitioner for family pension, the same was not paid, hence the present writ petition is to issue direction against the respondents to pay the family pension due to the death of the first petitioner''s husband.

Considering the said factual backdrop elicited above, I am of the considered view that the 3rd respondent must be directed to fulfil the legal obligation of paying the family pension due to the petitioners. In these circumstances, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the claim of the petitioners for the purpose of payment of family pension due to them for the services rendered by the first petitioner''s husband by quantifying the same. Such order shall be passed by the first respondent, as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.