← Library
Madras High CourtWP/17673/2026dismissed

B.Sundari v. The Registrar

2026-06-01Honourable Ms. Justice P.T. Asha7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 01-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA & WMP NO. 18996 of 2026 B.Sundari ..Petitioner(s) Vs The Registrar Anna University Chennai 600025.

..Respondent(s) Prayer:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 27.11.2024, Ref.No. 351/PR 62/2024 and quash the same as unsustainable in law and consequently issue direction to the respondent herein to grant Family Pension to the petitioner consequent on the demise of the petitioner's husband Mr.Balaraman. For Petitioner(s):

Mr. D.Rajendran

ORDER

This writ petition is filed for the following relief: "To call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 27.11.2024, Ref.No. 351/PR 62/2024 and quash the same as unsustainable in law and consequently issue direction

to the respondent herein to grant Family Pension to the petitioner consequent on the demise of the petitioner's husband Mr.Balaraman."

2. The petitioner would submit that she had married one Balaraman, on 09.10.1982, as his second wife with the knowledge and consent of his first wife, namely Ellammal. The petitioner and the said Balaraman lived together as husband and wife for nearly four decades and were blessed with two children. The first wife of the said Balaraman expired on 06.09.2012, after which the petitioner continued to live with her husband until his demise on 07.03.2021.

3. The petitioner would submit that the deceased Balaraman had served under the respondent institution for more than 33 years and retired from service on 30.06.2000. He was receiving pension till his death. During his lifetime, he had acknowledged the petitioner as his wife and had also made a representation to the respondent requesting that family pension be granted to her.

4. After the death of the said Balaraman, the petitioner applied for grant of family pension. However, the respondent failed to consider her request on the ground that her name was not entered in the service register and that she was the second wife of the deceased employee.

5. The petitioner submits that she had lived with the said Balaraman for more than 39 years as his wife and was entirely dependent on him. It is further submitted that the first wife having predeceased the employee, the petitioner, being the surviving spouse, is entitled to the family pension. The denial of pension on technical grounds is arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the object of pension scheme. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

7. The petitioner claims to have married the deceased Balaraman on 09.10.1982, even when his first wife was alive. She would submit that for over four decades she and the deceased Balaraman had lived together as husband and wife and had begotten two children.

8. Admittedly, the petitioner has not produced any document to prove the relationship. The deceased Balaraman has also not taken any steps to nominate the petitioner as his wife in his service register. On the contrary, he has nominated his first wife, Ellammal, daughter B.Vijayakumari and son B.Jayaraman as his nominees. The impugned order would indicate that despite direction to the petitioner to produce copy of the marriage registration certificate, legal heirship certificate and death certificate, the same have not been produced and the petitioner has stated that the marriage with the said Balaraman has not been registered.

9. An attempt is made to contend that the deceased Balaraman had made a representation to the respondent stating that his first wife, Ellammal had passed away and that the family pension should be given to his second wife, the petitioner herein. However, this letter is undated one and there is nothing to show that the same has been served upon the respondent.

10. Be that as it may, the petitioner has to first establish the fact that she is the wife of the deceased Balaraman, for which she has to necessarily

approach the appropriate forum. Without having herself declared as wife of the said Balaraman, she cannot question the impugned order.

11. This writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

01-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order KAN

To The Registrar Anna University Chennai 600025.

P.T.ASHA, J.

KAN 01-06-2026