The Madras High Court Bench here has come down heavily upon Principal Accountant General (PAG) for returning a proposal sent by an Additional Assistant Educational Officer (AAEO) in Virudhunagar district to grant terminal benefits and family pension to the adopted daughter of a government school headmistress who died in harness.
Allowing a writ petition filed by the adopted minor girl, K. Nandhini, who had been seeking the benefits since 2010, Justice S. Vimala said: “There is no scope at all for the authorities concerned to return the pension proposal. It is a total non-application of mind as well as misunderstanding of the law on this point and therefore the impugned order is set aside.”
“The first respondent (PAG) is directed to get the pension proposal from the second respondent (AAEO) and to pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
The judge wondered how could the PAG have returned the pension proposal to the petitioner’s father and her natural guardian.
Adopted at three
Justice Vimala pointed out that the headmistress, Packialakshmi, had adopted the petitioner as per Hindu rites and customs in 2002 when the latter was just three years old and the adoption was also duly registered.
The headmistress had also amended the details in her Service Register and nominated the adopted daughter to receive her terminal benefits.
After the headmistress’ death on February 20, 2010, Nandhini applied for family pension and other benefits.
The girl also filed a civil suit to declare that she was the legal heir of the deceased and therefore entitled to receive all terminal benefits, including pension, due to her mother and obtained a favourable decree in 2012.
Though the Civil Court declared the girl as the legal heir, it refrained from issuing a direction to grant pension on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Hence, the PAG had returned the pension proposal leading to the present writ petition.
Finding fault with the officials, Ms. Justice Vimala said: “The civil court did not entertain the claim of the petitioner for pension on account of statutory bar under the provisions of the Pension Act, 1871. Even though there is a bar for the Civil Court to adhere to such claim, it does not bar the jurisdiction of the concerned authorities.
Bench raps Principal Accountant General for returning proposal to grant pension
to Nandhini
