K.Meena, W/O.Krishnapandi v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.11.2016 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Writ Petition (MD) No.20513 of 2016 1.K.Meena 2.S.Murugeshwari 3.L.Nagarajan 4.K.Ruby 5.R.Rajendran 6.S.Muthaiya 7.J.Bhaskaran 8.D.Jayaratchagan 9.N.Munusamy Nagasamy 10.S.Kadar Moideen 11.A.Saibeevi 12.N.Shanmugavalli ... Petitioners Vs.
1. The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai 625 020.
2. The Tahsildar, Social Security Scheme, Madurai West, Madurai 625 020.
3. The Tahsildar, Social Security Scheme, Madurai North, Madurai 625 020.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent first respondent to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to provide monthly pension to petitioners by considering petitioners respective representations as stated in the schedule within a period as stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen For Respondents : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, Government Advocate.
ORDER
The petitioners have come up with the above writ petition seeking for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the first
respondent to give direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to grant monthly pension to the petitioners by considering their respective representations.
2.Heard Mr.A.Haja Mohideen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
3.According to the petitioners, they are living below the poverty line and they are entitled to get old age pension. Therefore, they have submitted representations before the respondents. Since no order has been passed, the present writ petition has been filed.
4.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that in respect of the petitioners 2, 4, 8, 9,10 and 12, their names were recommended for grant of old age pension and in respect of the petitioners 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11, their case has been rejected on the ground of non furnishing of correct address in some cases and in some cases, the petitioners having residential houses and they are living along with their children. 5.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that so far as the petitioners whose address was not correct, they will furnish correct address to the respondents enabling the authorities to consider their application.
6.So far as the petitioners for whom the respondents rejected application of the petitioners on the ground that they did not furnish correct address, the respective petitioners are directed to furnish correct address to the respondents 2 and 3. On furnishing of correct address, the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to consider their application on merits and pass suitable orders for granting old-age pension. So far as the cases where the applications have been rejected on the ground that they are residing along with their children, the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to conduct fresh enquiry to find out whether they have independent source income and whether they are entitled to get old-age pension as per the scheme and pass appropriate orders. The above said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai 625 020.
2. The Tahsildar, Social Security Scheme, Madurai West, Madurai 625 020.
3. The Tahsildar, Social Security Scheme, Madurai North, Madurai 625 020.
+ 1 CC TO Mr.A.HAJA MOHIDEEN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 67167 + 1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR No. 66624 SMS TE/KM : 14/12/2016 : 3P/6C Writ Petition (MD) No.20513 of 2016 07.11.2016