P.Ulagesan v. The State Of Tamilnadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA W.P.No.26032 of 2025 P. Ulagesan
...Petitioner
Vs
1. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary to Government Public ( Political Pension - II) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector Collectorate, Fort Main Road, Salem - 636 001
...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to pass necessary orders sanctioning Freedom Fighter's family pension to the petitioner based on the recommendations made by the second respondent vide Na.Ka.No.3-13882/2024/A7 dated 18.10.2024 with effect from 26.06.2023 within a time frame as fixed by this Court and pass orders. For Petitioner : Mr.G. Harshavarthan For Respondents 1&2 : Mrs.P. Vijayadevi Government Advocate 1/7
ORDER
Mrs.P. Vijayadevi, Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.
2. By consent of both counsels, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 3.This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to pass necessary orders sanctioning Freedom Fighter's family pension to the petitioner based on the recommendations of the second respondent vide Na.Ka.No.3-13882/2024/A7 dated 18.10.2024 with effect from 26.06.2023, and within a time frame fixed by this Court. 4.The petitioner's father was a freedom fighter and he was drawing freedom fighter's family pension from the Government of India and Government of Tamil Nadu till his death. After the demise of the petitioner's father, the petitioner's mother was drawing the freedom fighter's family pension till her life time. Whileso, the petitioner submitted a representation for grant of the family pension in his favour 2/7
after the death of his mother, by invoking G.O.(Ms)No.748, Public ( Political Pension - II) Department dated 11.08.1995. The first respondent also recommended the petitioner's case to the second respondent for sanctioning of pension in his favour of the petitioner. Despite the recommendations of the first respondent, no action was taken. Therefore, the petitioner filed the above writ petition for the above said relief.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and in view of the recommendation of the first respondent to sanction the family pension on the basis of G.O.(Ms)No.748, dated 11.08.1995, I am inclined to direct the second respondent to pass orders sanctioning family pension to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
3/7
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
17.07.2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order smn To.
1. The Secretary to Government Public ( Political Pension - II) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector Collectorate, Fort Main Road, Salem - 636 001 4/7
N.MALA,J.
Smn W.P.No.26032 of 2025 17.07.2025 N. MALA, J.
5/7
This matter is listed today under the caption 'for being mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. It is brought to the notice of this Court that some typographical errors have been crept in the order dated 17.07.2025 at paragraph Nos.4 & 6. Accordingly, the following corrections shall be incorporated in the order, "4. The petitioner's father was a freedom fighter and he was drawing freedom fighter's family pension from the Government of India and Government of Tamil Nadu till his death. After the demise of the petitioner's father, the petitioner's mother was drawing the freedom fighter's family pension till her life time. While so, the petitioner submitted a representation for grant of the family pension in his favour after the death of his mother, by invoking G.O.(Ms)No.748, Public ( Political Pension - II) Department dated 11.08.1995. The second respondent also recommended the petitioner's case to the first respondent for sanctioning of pension in his favour of the petitioner. Despite the recommendations of the first respondent, N. MALA, J.
dpq 6/7
no action was taken. Therefore, the petitioner filed the above writ petition for the above said relief.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and in view of the recommendation of the second respondent to sanction the family pension on the basis of G.O.(Ms)No.748, dated 11.08.1995, I am inclined to direct the first respondent to pass orders sanctioning family pension to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order".
Thereby, he would request that the said portion of the order may be corrected and copy may be issued accordingly.
3. In view of the above, Registry is directed to carry out the necessary corrections in the order and issue order copy afresh. All other observations made in order dated 08.07.2025 shall remain the same. 08.09.2025 dpq 7/7