The Madras High Court Bench here has held that terminal benefits such as Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity due to a deceased government servant cannot be disbursed to their brothers if the latter had crossed the age of 18 at the time of being nominated to receive them.
Justices M. Sathyanarayanan and J. Nisha Banu held so while dismissing a writ petition filed by the brother of a Bench Clerk, in the district court here, who took voluntary retirement on May 3, 2011 and died on December 16, 2011 after nominating her husband and brother to receive her terminal benefits.
Since her husband had also died on February 25, 2013 and the couple had no issues, the writ petitioner urged the District and Sessions Judge in the III Additional District Court here to forward a representation made by him on December 21, 2011 to the office of the Accountant General in Chennai for payment of retirement benefits.
However, the District Judge rejected the request on the ground that the petitioner would not fall under the definition of the term ‘family’ and hence was not eligible to claim the benefit.
Pension rules
As per the Pension Rules, the retirement benefits could be handed over only to wife or wives, including judicially separated wife or wives in the case of a male government servant; husband, including judicially separated husband in the case of a female government servant and sons including step sons, adopted sons and sons born through illegitimate wife.
Others who could claim the benefit were unmarried or widowed daughters, including stepdaughter, adopted daughters and unmarried daughters born through illegitimate wife; parents including stepmother and adoptive parents; unmarried sisters and widowed sisters including step sisters and brothers including step brothers below 18 years.
Concurring with the decision taken by the District Judge, the Division Bench said: “As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, as per sub rule 5 of Rule 45 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, the petitioner herein cannot be considered as a family member unless at the time of nomination he was below the age of 18 years.
“In the light of the factual submission and legal position, this court is of the view that the impugned endorsement passed by the respondent warrants no interference and therefore the writ petition is dismissed... The petitioner, if so advised and if the remedy is available under law, is always at liberty to approach the competent civil forum.”
