Devaki v. The Superintendent Engineer,Villupuram Electricity Distribution Circle,Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,Villupuram & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 17.08.2009CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALANW.P.No.32418 of 2003 Devaki... PetitionerVs.1.The Superintendent Engineer,Villupuram Electricity Distribution Circle,Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,Villupuram.2.The Internal Audit Officer,Board Office Audit Branch,Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,No.800, Anna Salai,Chennai-600 002. ... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus calling for the records relating to the authorizationletter No.56703 C.No.466 BOAB F09/U 92/PPONO.44852 dated11.12.2002 on the file of the second respondent and theconsequential proceedings made in LetterNo.Ku.Aa.No.928/Ni.Pi.3/Ni.Utha.2/Ko.Kattu/2003 dated 26.06.2003on the file of the first respondent and the letterNo.36137/F9/F92/Tha.No.165/2003 dated 04.08.2003 on the file ofthe second respondent, quash the same in so far as non-authorizingof commutation of pension and direct the respondents to pay theentire commutation of pension of the deceased Lakshmanan to thepetitioner.For Petitioner:Mr.V.ElangovanFor Respondents:Mr.M.VaidyanathanO R D E RThe petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging theproceedings dated 11.12.2002 passed by the 2nd respondent and theconsequential proceedings dated 26.06.2003 passed by the 1strespondent, and for a direction to the respondents to pay her theentire commutation of pension of her deceased husband, Lakshmanan. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband wasworking as wireman in Marakkanam Section, Villupuram ElectricityDistribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Villupuram.While he was in service, he preferred an application for VoluntaryRetirement with effect from 31.07.2002 and he was relieved on31.07.2002 A.N. on Voluntary Retirement Scheme.3. It is further stated by the petitioner that while inservice, her husband gave an application to the 1st respondent on17.07.2002 for commutation of his pension and to pay a part of italong with other terminal benefits. Three days after hisretirement, the petitioner suddenly died in a road accident on03.08.2002. The 1st respondent, after considering the applicationdated 17.07.2002, sanctioned the death-cum-Retirement Gratuity(hereinafter referred to as DCRG) of a sum of Rs.1,32,780/- to thepetitioner vide Proceedings No.Ni.Ku.No.928/Ni.Pi.-3/Utha.2/Ko.0.No.79/2002-1, dated 27.09.2002. On the same dayanother order has been passed by the 1st respondent videProceedings No.Ni.Ku.No.928/Ni.Pi.-3/Utha.2/Ko.0.No.79/2002-5sanctioning the monthly pension of Rs.3,053/- to the petitionerand vide Proceedings No.Ni.Ku.No.928/Ni.Pi.-3/Utha.2/Ko.0.No.79/2002-6 permitted to commute 40% of the pensionand ordered payment of Rs.1,76,557/- to the petitioner, subject toauthorization by the 2nd respondent. However, when the matter wasplaced before the 2nd respondent for authorization of the paymentof pension, the 2nd respondent, by proceedings dated 11.12.2002rejected the payment of commutation of pension on the ground thather husband died on 03.08.2002, whereas the commutation of pensionwas sanctioned on 27.09.2002 and he is not eligible forcommutation of pension. Challenging the said order of the 2ndrespondent, the petitioner has is before this court on the groundthat her husband made a requisition to the 1st respondent forcommutation of pension on 17.07.2002 and the same was consideredby the respondent Board vide proceedings dated 27.02.2003.According to the petitioner, if there had been no application, theclaim of commutation of pension would not have been sanctioned.4. In the counter affidavit, respondents have stated thatthe petitioner's husband Lakshmanan was working as a wireman atMarakkanam Section, Villupuram Electricity Distribution Circle andwhile in service, he preferred an application to the firstrespondent for Voluntary Retirement Service with effect from31.07.2002 and the same was considered by the 1st respondent and hewas permitted to go on Voluntary Retirement Service with effectfrom 31.07.2002 A.N.5. According to the respondents, after granting permissionfor voluntary retirement to the Board employee, the pensionproposal booklets for retirement benefits are to be served to him;thereafter, the pension proposal booklets are to be filled up bythe retired employee (Voluntary Retirement) duly attested by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Field Officers concerned and the same will be submitted to the 1strespondent. It is their case that in the case on hand, beforesending pension proposal booklets to the petitioner's husbandthrough the Assistant Executive Engineer concerned, the 1strespondent received a report that unfortunately, the petitioner'shusband met with an accident on 01.08.2002 and died on 03.08.2002.The respondents would submit that the Family Pension ClaimBooklets for terminal benefits in respect of the deceased employeewere served to the legal heirs of the deceased on 12.09.2002 andthe same was submitted by the legal heirs on 20.09.2002 forpreparation of terminal benefits. While sanctioning the terminalbenefits, the 1st respondent mistakenly had sanctioned thecommutation of pension along with other terminal benefits and thesame was forwarded to the 2nd respondent on 16.11.2002 forauthorization. The 2nd respondent in her authorization letter,dated 11.12.2002 pointed out that the deceased employee is noteligible for commutation value, stating that the petitioner'shusband expired on 03.08.2002, whereas the commutation valuesanction has been accorded on 27.09.2002 by the first respondentby mistake, without noticing the death of the employee.6. While that being so, the petitioner made arepresentation on 26.03.2003, requesting him to sanction thecommutation of pension and surrender leave sanction. Thereafter,the first respondent sent a letter dated 11.04.2003 to the secondrespondent to reconsider the payment of commutation of pension ofthe petitioner by wrongly interpreting the Board Proceedings dated27.02.2003 and further intimated that the petitioner's husbandvoluntarily retired on 31.07.2002 and died on 03.08.2002 andfurther the deceased employee has not submitted his applicationfor commutation of pension. Therefore the commutation valuesanction has not been accorded and the first respondent on26.06.2003 has rejected the petitioner's claim for commutation ofpension on the ground that there is no application for commutationof pension made by the deceased employee. Thereafter the secondrespondent also rejected the petitioner's claim on 04.08.2003.Challenging the above order of the second respondent dated11.12.2002 for authorization of family pension and the orderspassed by the first respondent on 26.06.2003 and 04.08.2003rejecting the petitioner's claim for commutation of pension, thepetitioner has filed this writ petition. 7.It is specifically stated that the petitioner's husbandhas never made an application on 17.07.2002 for commutation ofpension to the first respondent and the contention of thepetitioner that the petitioner's husband gave an application on17.07.2002 is denied as false one. Therefore, the petitioner'shusband is not entitled for the commutation of pension in theabsence of any application made by him. It is also stated in theCounter that the first respondent sanctioned the family pension,terminal benefits and by mistake also sanctioned the commutation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ value and the same was forwarded to the second respondent hereinfor authorization. The second respondent has declined thecommutation of pension on the ground that the deceased employeedid not apply for commutation of pension and therefore he is noteligible for the same. Therefore the respondents have prayed forthe dismissal of the writ petition.8. Heard Mr.Elangovan, learned counsel for the petitionerand Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel appearing for therespondents.9.A circumspection of the facts would reveal that thepetitioner was a Wireman working in the respondents ElectricityBoard and he opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme andaccordingly, he was relieved from the post on 31.07.2002.Thereafter he met with an accident on 01.08.2002 and died on03.08.2002. It is seen that there was an application forVoluntary Retirement Scheme and also pension proposals have beentaken up by the respondents and accordingly sanctioned theretirement benefits including the commutation of pension. It isspecifically averred by the respondents that the first respondenthas sanctioned the family pension terminal benefits. But, bymistake also sanctioned the commutation of pension. 10. It is also seen from the pleadings that there was anapplication made by the petitioner's husband on 17.07.2002 forcommutation of his pension and thereafter the first respondent hassanctioned the terminal benefits, family pension and also thecommutation of value. It is the strong contention of the learnedcounsel for the petitioner that there was an application by thepetitioner's husband on 17.07.2002, based on that application, thefirst respondent has sanctioned the commutation of pension andfurther without verifying the application, the order of thecommutation of pension has been withdrawn by the respondents,contrary to the claim of the petitioner dated 17.07.2002. Thesaid contention was strongly refuted by the counsel for therespondents stating that the said application was never made bythe petitioner's husband and therefore the respondents passed theimpugned order withdrawing the sanction of commutation of pensionamount. 11.On analysis of the entire facts and circumstances, aquestion arises for consideration as to whether there was anapplication on 17.07.2002 by the petitioner's deceased husband forclaim of the commutation of pension or not, and if so, the actionof the first respondent in withdrawing the order of commutation ofpension would be justified.12.While examining the issue in question, I have gonethrough the documents annexed in the typed set of papers, wherein,it is seen that the application dated 17.07.2002 was made by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner's husband to the 1st respondent through proper channel.However, the respondents have earlier sanctioned the commutationof pension. Later on, it was rejected at the stage ofauthorisation by the 2nd respondent on the ground that no suchapplication was made by the deceased employee. 13.A perusal of the documents would show that commutationof pension was already granted to the petitioner. However, it hasbeen stated that it was mistakenly sanctioned. In the proceedingsof the 1st respondent dated 11.04.2003, the petitioner's claim wasrecommended to the 2nd respondent. However, looking into thecircumstances under which the petitioner's husband has made anapplication on 17.07.2002 to the 1st respondent, enclosing a copyof the wedding invitation of his daughter, seeking commutation ofpension as the amount is required for his daughter's marriage, theimmediate necessity of the commuted pension amount to thepetitioner's husband is vivid. On scrutiny of the case on hand,it is evident that the petitioner's husband has made anapplication to the 1st respondent seeking commutation of pensionand the said application has been considered by the 1st respondentand pension was sanctioned; but, rejecting the same at the stageof authorization by the 2nd respondent could not be justified,since, terminal benefits of the deceased employee cannot be deniedfor technical reasons. 14.In the light of the above discussion and on perusing theentire material records, I am of the considered opinion that theimpugned proceedings of the respondents rejecting the claim of thepetitioner cannot be sustained and they are accordingly set aside.The respondents are directed to re-consider the petitioner's claimbased on the application dated 17.07.2002 and pass appropriateorders taking into account the overall circumstances and pay thepetitioner the amount of commutation of pension of her deceasedhusband. This exercise shall be completed within a period ofthree (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.The Writ Petition is allowed with the above direction. krk/tsiSd/-Asst. Registrar//True Copy//Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Superintendent Engineer,Villupuram Electricity Distribution Circle,Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,Villupuram.2.The Internal Audit Officer,Board Office Audit Branch,Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,No.800, Anna Salai,Chennai-600 002+ 1 cc to Mr. M.Vaidyanathan, Advocate SR No.39332+ 1 cc to Mr. S.Doraisamy, Advocate SR No.39048W.P.No.32418 of 2003TS(CO)SR/10.9.2009