← Library
Madras High CourtWP/42991/2025dismissed

R.Jayanthi v. The Chairman Cum Managing Director,

2025-11-12Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN R.Jayanthi .....

Petitioner Vs 1.The Chairman cum Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, N.P.K.R.R.Maligai, Old No.800, New No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

2.The Chief Engineer (Personal) TANGEDCO Limited, N.P.K.R.R.Maligai, Old No.800, New No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

3.The Superintending Engineer, Kallakurichi Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO Limited, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kallakurichi District.

.....

Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent in Ref.No.442/MayPo/ KmiPaVa/Kallai/Ni.A/Ni.P2/Asst.1/Ko.Kattu/2025, dated 07.08.2025 along with 1/6

annexure letter No.030474/Ji15/Ji151/2024, dated 22.07.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent and quash the same as being arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, and violative of principle of natural Justice, consequently direct the respondents to release and disburse all family pension, Death - cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG), revised gratuity arrears, Family Benefit Fund, Special Provident Fund, Provident Fund, and all other terminal and service benefits to the petitioner, along with accrued interest and continuing monthly pension with effect from 04.08.2016 within a time frame fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Murugan For Respondents : Mr.C.Manoharan Standing Counsel

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the third respondent, thereby rejecting the request made by the petitioner seeking grant of family pension on the demise of the petitioner's husband Rajendran.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3.One Rajendran was served as a First Grade Assistant Engineer (O & M) in the Electricity Board. He got married to one Rani and gave birth to two 2/6

children. The name of the said Rani was also entered in the service records as his wife. The petitioner claims that the said Rajendran got separated from the said Rani and got married the petitioner and that they were living together. The petitioner's name was also entered as a nominee. While being so, the said Rajendran died and the petitioner claimed family pension. 4.The petitioner was directed to approach the competent civil Court and obtain a declaration that she is the wedded wife of the deceased Rajendran in order to claim family pension.

Though the petitioner filed a civil suit as against the first respondent, and the parties entered into a compromise by filing a settlement memo before the Lok Adalat, wherein the said Rani consented to the grant of family pension in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner did not obtain any declaration from the Civil Court declaring her as the legally wedded wife of the deceased Rajendran. The settlement memo does not reveal the legal status of the petitioner as the wife of the deceased that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Rajendran. Though the said Rajendran had entered the name of the petitioner as nominee to receive the benefits if any, the petitioner is not entitled for the family pension. The family pension can be paid only to the legally wedded wife or other eligible legal heirs as per the Pension Rules.

5.Admittedly, the petitioner failed to obtain any decree declaring her to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased Rajendran. Now, the said Rani also died and no other entitled legal heirs are available to receive the family pension. Therefore, the request made by the petitioner was rightly rejected. 6.In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the third respondent. Thus, the writ petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 12.11.2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking Lpp 4/6

To 1.The Chairman cum Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, N.P.K.R.R.Maligai, Old No.800, New No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

2.The Chief Engineer (Personal) TANGEDCO Limited, N.P.K.R.R.Maligai, Old No.800, New No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

3.The Superintending Engineer, Kallakurichi Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO Limited, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kallakurichi District.

5/6

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Lpp 12.11.2025 6/6