AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Petitioner''s husband, who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police in the second Respondent unit, wanted to go on voluntary retirement with effect from31.10.1998. Accordingly, he was permitted to go under Voluntary retirement.
According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner''s husband wanted only a commuted value of pension, butthe Petitioner was granted full pension. It is pleaded that in Form No. V, prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, Column No. 12 was corrected, i.e., according to the Petitioner, when the Petitioner''s husband wrote ''yes'' for commutation, it was corrected as ''no''. The Petitioner''s husband died on 11.06.1999. The Petitioner made a complaint dated 26.11.99 to the third Respondent, seeking commutation of pension. It''s also stated that while her husband was alive, he sent a letter dated 30.04.1999 requesting for commutation of pension. The Petitioner by her letter dated 14.06.1999 requested commutation of pension.
The Respondents 2 and 3 filed reply affidavit. In the reply affidavit, it is stated that the Petitioner''s husband only requested full pension and he did not request commutation of pension. It is also stated that Form No. V was filled by the clerk of the department and the same was not filled by the Petitioner''s husband. When it was filled against column No. 12 as ''yes'' indicating requirement of commutation of pension, the Petitioner''s husband wanted it to be corrected as ''no''. Hence, the same was corrected by the clerk, who filled the application form.
Heard.
The entire file relating to the payment of pension was produced by the Respondents 2 and 3. The learned Counsel representing the first Respondent produced the written instruction. In the written instruction, it is stated that as per Form No. V, the Petitioner''s husband did not request commutation of pension. Hence, full pension was sanctioned.
I have considered the submissions made on either side.
It is more beneficial if the Petitioner''s husband opted for commutation of pay, since he died immediately after his voluntary retirement. But the Petitioner''s husband opted for full pension. To ascertain the fact as to whether the Petitioner''s husband made any complaint that he wanted only commutation of pension, the Petitioner was not able to produce any evidence for having sent the letter dated30.04.1999 enclosed in the typed set asking for commutation of pension. The file produced by the Respondents also does not contain the letter dated30.04.1999. The Petitioner''s husband retired on31.10.2008 and died on 11.06.1999. In between, the Petitioner''s husband did not ask for commutation of pension. After the death of the Petitioner''s husband, the Petitioner thought that the commutation of pension could be more beneficial as the Petitioner''s husband died immediately after retirement.
I have perused the file and it is also clarified by both the Government Advocate as well as the counsel representing the first Respondent that while sending Form No. V, the Department used to send commutation details also and depending on the requestor the employees, the first Respondent used to sanction commutation of pension or full pension. In this case, the Petitioner''s husband wanted full pension. Admittedly, Form No. V was not filled by the Petitioner''s husband. There is a correction in column No. 12 indicating ''No''. It could not be stated that Form No. V was corrected to the disadvantage of the Petitioner''s husband. Had it been disadvantage of the Petitioner''s husband, he could have approached at least before his death. He did not approach for commutation, while he was alive. There is no merit in this Writ Petition. Hence, the claim of the Petitioner for payment of commutation of pension has no basis.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.