K. P. Ranga Nayagi v. The Director Of Elementary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN K.P. Ranga Nayagi ...petitioner Vs

1. The Director of Elementary Education, Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

2. The Accountant General, O/o The Accountant General, Teynampet, Chnnai - 600 018.

3. The District Treasury Officer, B- Block, 1st Floor, Collectorate, Sathuvachari,Vellore.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.02.2024 and thereby direct the respondents 1 to 3 to disburse pensionary benefits of the petitioner's husband ( Late) K.M. Perumal to the petitioner without any further delay and pass orders.

1/6

For Petitioner :Mr.B. Sundarapandiyan For Respondent-1 : Mrs. S.Mythreye Chandru Special Government Pleader For Respondent - 2 : Mr.P.Mano Rajan, SC For Respondent-3 :Mr.R.U.Dinesh Raj Kumar, AGP

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.02.2024 and thereby direct the respondents 1 to 3 to disburse pensionary benefits of the petitioner's husband ( Late) K.M. Perumal to the petitioner without any further delay and pass orders.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein viz., K.P. Rangayanagi is the second wife of late K.M. Perumal and one K.P.Pattammal was the first wife. It is the submission of the petitioner that in the Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1755 of 2011 dated 23.03.2015, there was a compromise by and which the second respondent has been paying the pension amount each 50% to the first and second wife namely K.P.Pattammal and K.P. Rangayanagi. After the demise of the said 2/6

Pattammal, the respondent was not paying the pension. Hence, prayed to issue a mandamus to the respondents directing them to pay the pension amount to the petitioner.

3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that admittedly the petitioner is the second wife and while looking at the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1755 of 2011, there was no direction to the second respondent and it was a adjustment between the first and second wife. In order to understand the issue clearly, it is appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the said Judgment. The relevant point of the Judgment is Paragraph No. 3(6), which reads as follows:

Both the parties mutually agree that from February 2015 the amount of family pension as may be paid by the second respondent shall be credited into the account of the 4th respondent wife of late K.M. Perumal and thereafter the 4th respondent shall pay 50% of the total family pension amount every month till her life time to the appellant by issuing a cheque to and in favour of the appellant.

3/6

4. In view of the above, the second respondent was not involved in that settlement and what was stated is that on credit of the pension amount, the first wife Pattammal shall pay 50% to the Ranganayagi. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned standing counsel for the second respondent, the second wife/petitioner herein is not entitled for pension. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any merits in this Writ Petition.

5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.

12.06.2025 smn Index : Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order 4/6

To,

1. The Director of Elementary Education, Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

2. The Accountant General, O/o The Accountant General, Teynampet, Chnnai - 600 018.

3. The District Treasury Officer, B- Block, 1st Floor, Collectorate, Sathuvachari, Vellore.

5/6

C.KUMARAPPAN, J., smn 12.06.2025 6/6