N. Leela Padmanabhan vs The Senior Accounts Officer the Office of the Accountant General and Swanalatha

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—Heard Mr. C. Deivasigamani, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. V. Vijay Shankar, learned counsel for the

first respondent and Mr. S.S. Gunalan, learned counsel for the second respondent. This Writ Appeal is filed against the order made in Writ Petition

No. 48126 of 2006 dated 16.4.2008, wherein the request made by the appellant seeking Family Pension from the date of death of her husband

late Padmanabhan, was rejected.

It is the contention of the appellant that the deceased Padmanabhan issued an Advertisement in Dinathanthi Newspaper dated 10.1.2001 stating

that he was not having wife or children and earning monthly income of Rs. 8,000/- and anybody who is interested in marrying him, can apply to the

address at No. 2, Vedachalam Street, Tambaram Sanatorium, Chennai 47. The said advertisement was given by the said Padmanabhan at the age

of 61.

2.1. According to the appellant, the petitioner expressed her willingness to marry the said Padmanabhan, pursuant to which marriage was arranged

to be held on 25.3.2001 and the marriage was also performed by the said Padmanabhan with the appellant in Arulmigu Anjaneyar Temple at

Tambaram Sanatorium. The marriage invitation is also filed in the typed set of papers. After the said marriage, the appellant and the said

Padmanabhan lived as husband and wife.

2.2. The said Padmanabhan died on 21.6.2003 and the appellant claimed Family Pension as widow of the deceased Padmanabhan, as he was a

retired District Employment Officer. The said request was rejected by the first respondent by order dated 9.12.2005 stating that as per the Family

Pension Rules, second wife is not eligible to receive Family Pension. The said Padmanabhan married the appellant, when the first marriage of the

said Padmanabhan with the second respondent was subsisting. The said order was challenged before this Court and the learned Single Judge

dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that as per Rule 49(7)(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu (Pension) Rules, 1978, Family Pension can be given to a

legally wedded wife and no other person is entitled to claim the status of the wife during the subsistence of the marriage with the first wife.

The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the said order by contending that the said Padmanabhan, during the alleged subsistence of the

marriage with the second respondent, misled the appellant by inviting bride for his marriage at the age of 61 years by issuing paper advertisement

and the appellant was cheated by the said Padmanabhan. Without knowing the first marriage of the said Padmanabhan with the second respondent

which was in subsistence, the said Padmanabhan induced the appellant to marry him and the marriage was also solemnized at Arulmigu Anjaneyar

Temple at Tambaram Sanatorium on 25.3.2001 and therefore the said Padmanabhan by marrying the appellant during subsistence of his first

marriage with the second respondent, committed moral delinquency and the same constitutes a ground to withdraw the pension sanctioned to him

under Rules 8 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which empowers the Government to withdraw or withhold pension.

Learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent is the legally wedded wife and she is receiving Family Pension

from the date of death of her husband.

Having regard to the said facts, namely the appellant was allegedly cheated/misled by the said Padmanabhan, the issue as to whether the pension

sanctioned to him can be withdrawn and the Family Pension which is now being paid to the second respondent by virtue of the pension already

sanctioned to the said Padmanabhan can be continued or not, has to be decided by the first respondent on appreciation of the material facts in this

case.

Rule 8 of The Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 is extracted hereunder: ""8. Pension subject to future good conduct:-

(1)(a) Future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension and its continuance under these rules;

(b) the pension sanctioning authority may by order in writing withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a

specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct;

Provided that no such order shall be passed by an authority subordinate to the authority competent to make an appointment to the post held by the

pensioner immediately before his retirement from service;

Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the limit specified in

sub-rule (5) of Rule 43.

(2) Where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a Court, action under sub-rule (1) shall be taken in the light of a judgment of the Court

relating to such conviction.

(3) In a case not falling under sub=rule (2), if the authority referred to in sub-rule (1) considers that the pensioner is prima facie guilty of grave

misconduct, it shall, before passing an order under sub-rule (1)-

(a) serve upon the pensioner a notice specifying the action proposed to be taken against him and the ground on which it is proposed to be taken

and calling upon him to submit, within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice or such further time not exceeding fifteen days as may be allowed by

the pension sanctioning authority, such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; and

(b) take into consideration an order passed under sub-rule (1) by any authority other than the Government, shall lie to the Government and the

Government shall, in consultation with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission pass such orders on the appeal as they deem fit.

NOTE: In this Rule.-

(a) the expression ""serious crime"" includes a crime involving an offence under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923).

(b) the expression ""grave misconduct"" includes the communication or disclosure of any secret official code or password or any sketch, plan,

model, article, note document or information, such as is mentioned in Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) (which was

obtained while holding office under the Government) so as to prejudicially affect, the interest of the general public or the security of the State.

In such circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The rejection of the claim of the appellant seeking Family Pension by

the first respondent also stands set aside. The matter is remitted to the first respondent to refer the matter before the competent authority to decide

as to whether the Family Pension, which is being paid to the second respondent, can be continued in the light of the contentions raised by the

appellant stating that she was cheated and misled by the second respondent''s husband, namely Padmanabhan, for which the withdrawal of pension

is permissible under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and pass fresh orders. Before passing any such order, the authority concerned

is directed to hear the appellant as well as the second respondent. The said exercise is directed to be carried out by the first respondent or the

competent authority within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Appeal is disposed of with the above

direction. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.