Judgment · High Court · 2008

C. Umashankar, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent and perused the records. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the Tamil Nadu AdministrativeTribunal [for short, 'CAT'] dated 17.10.2003 made in O.A. No. 3857 of2000, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. In the main writ petition, notice was ordered on 26.4.2004.In so far as the injunction application in W.M.P. No. 13168 of 2004was concerned, the same was dismissed by this Court on the same day. 4. The petitioner, claiming to be the wife of one R.Ravindran, who was working as Assistant Trainee Officer in the Government Industrial Training Institute at Coimbatore, claimed thepensionary benefits on account of his death on 23.11.1994. In terms of the Service Records, the said Ravindran had nominated Tharabai(fifth respondent) as his wife. After his death, the petitioner produced a legal heir certificate dated 18.10.1995 stating that the deceased Ravindran had left the following legal heirs.

1. Tmt. Tharabhai1st wife 42 years2.Tmt. Dhanalakshmi 2nd wife 38 years(Petitioner)3.Selvi Yamini2nd wife's 9 years(minor)daughter4.Selvan Prithvi2nd wife's7 years(minor)son5.Tmt. ThaiyalnayakiMother70 yearsAmmal5.The petitioner also filed a Civil Suit making the respondents as parties before the District Munsif Court, Dindigul inO.S. No. 693 of 1995 for a declaratory relief that she is entitled for employment benefit on account of the death of Ravindran. Arepresentation was sent to the Government for appropriate advise and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ when she did not get any reply, she filed the Original Applicationbeing O.A. No. 3857 of 2000 seeking for a direction to the official respondents to pay the terminal benefits including pension on account of the death of Ravindran on a proportionate basis. 6. The Tribunal held that the two minor children, even though were born to the petitioner, are illegitimate children, were entitled for a share in the property of the deceased Ravindran and, therefore, they are eligible for a share in the estate of Ravindran along with the petitioner and the first wife Tharabhai.

But in so far as the share of the minor children are concerned, the Tribunal directed the deposit of amounts in a Nationalised Bank and permitted the same tobe withdrawn only after they attained the majority. But in so far asher 1/4th share is concerned, she was entitled to get it paid immediately. The Tribunal also held that the question of grant of pension was governed by the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and since the deceased Ravindran had nominated only Tharabhai as nominee, she alone was entitled to receive pension from the Government. But, however, the two children of the petitioner, though are illegitimate (being born to the second wife), are eligible to get pension only after the death of the first wife of the deceased in terms of the Tamil NaduFamily Pension Rules. 7. In this context, the Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar [(2002) 2 SCC431] and relied on paragraph 14 of the judgment, which reads as follows:-Para 14:"It cannot be disputed that the marriage between NarainLal and Yogmaya Devi was in contravention of clause (i)of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act and was a void marriage.

Under Section 16 of this Act, children of avoid marriage are legitimate. Under the HinduSuccession Act, 1956, property of a male Hindu dying intestate devolves firstly on heirs in clause (1) which include the widow and son. Among the widow and son, they all get shares (see Sections 8, 10 and the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956). YogmayaDevi cannot be described as a widow of Narain Lal, her marriage with Narain Lal being void. The sons of the marriage between Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi being the legitimate sons of Narain Lal would be entitled to the property of Narain Lal in equal shares along with that of Rameshwari Devi and the son born from the marriage of Rameshwari Devi with Narain Lal. That is, however, the legal position when a Hindu male dies intestate. Here, however, we are concerned with the family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity payments which are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ governed by the relevant rules.

It is not disputed before us that if the legal position as aforesaid iscorrect, there is no error with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the judgment which is upheld by the Division Bench in LPA by the impugned judgment. "8. Mr. S.M. Subramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an agreement was reached on 25.02.1995 between the petitioner and the fifth respondent, before the Panchayatdar stating that out of the terminal dues payable to late Ravindran, such as Family Welfare Fund, Special PF, Gratuity, Encashment of EarnedLeave, GPF, the fifth respondent will receive 40% and the petitioner and her children will receive 60%. Out of the pension payable, each will receive 50% of the same every month and that the petitioner is entitled to get compassionate appointment. 9. The said agreement was filed before the District MunsifCourt for passing appropriate decree.