Chennai: Coming to the rescue of a woman, denied family pension after the death of her husband by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) on the ground that she is already receiving pension from the defence department, the Madras high court has held that she is also entitled to get family pension from the TNSTC, besides the pension she is receiving from the defence department and directed the TNSTC to pay the family pension to her within 4 weeks.
Disposing of a petition from Amalorpavam alias Amalorpava Mary, Justice T. Raja made it clear that the TNSTC is directed to release the arrears from the date of death of the petitioner’s husband, namely C. Gabriel on March 2, 2012, failing which, interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum will be calculated.
According to petitioner, being the wife of late Gabriel, who was a defence personnel and after retiring from defence services, subsequently, he joined the TNSTC, Dharmapuri region as a driver and retired from service on October 30, 2003, although, receiving pension for his defence service at the time of joining the TNSTC, after his retirement from the transport corporation also, he was granted pension. All of a sudden, from the date of death of her husband, the TNSTC alone refused to pay the pension, when the defence department continued to pay the same to her.
Aggrieved, she gave a representation and she was orally informed that on account of receiving pension from the defence department, she was not entitled to receive yet another pension from the TNSTC.
The judge said by various orders passed by this court, this issue has already been settled by this court. One such order had been passed by him in which, he had held that a freedom fighter who served in civil service is entitled for pension from the Central and state governments in addition to the civil service tenure, the petitioner therein was paid three pensions. Therefore, it was held that after his death, his wife was also entitled to get all the 3 pensions, the judge added.
The judge said in that judgment, when it was held that a pensioner receiving three types of pensions cannot be restricted to one pension and the same analogy will also equally apply to the present case in as much as the petitioner’s husband having employed in the Indian Army, retired there from and received a pension as an ex-serviceman.
After his retirement from the Army, he joined in the TNSTC and again retired from service and for his services rendered he was also paid with pension. Therefore, the petitioner while receiving her family pension from Indian Army, there was no bar for her to receive the pension from the TNSTC, the judge added.
