Family Of Deceased Employee Denied Pension For 36 Yrs: Madras High Court Says Authorities' Attitude Inhuman, Calls For Proper Mechanism

“This kind of attitude instead of being termed as unlawful, arbitrary etc., this Court in one word can explain the same as 'Inhuman'. For such an act on whom the responsibility can be fixed is a question, as by the time in these last 36 years, there might have been many number of persons could have occupied the position as Collector, Sub-Collector, D.R.O., R.D.O., Tahsildar etc,” the court said.

The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice C Kumarappan also directed the State to make amendments to existing laws or bring in effective mechanisms to the existing laws to see that the retirement cum death benefits are paid to the families within a period of six months.

“In this context, the existing law pertaining to the service conditions of the Government Servant may not be sufficient or adequate to have such an effective mechanism, therefore the Government may think of making amendment to the existing law and have an effective mechanism to see that, the retirement cum death benefits as well as the pensionary benefits and also the family pension benefits of a deceased Government employee, whatever be the entitlement accordingly, is paid and continued to be paid, within a maximum period of six months. achieve this goal we believe and expect that the State Government will come forward with a permanent solution by having a Scheme to streamline the System,” the court directed.

The court was hearing an appeal preferred by the Chennai District Collector, Kancheepuram District Collector and The Saidapet Taluk Tahsildar against an order of the single judge directing them to pay terminal benefits and family pension due to the family of late TS Perumal, who died in harness while working as a Village Assistant at the office of the Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy in 1987.

The court noted that in 1987 itself, when Perumal’s wife TVS Jaya had requested for sanctioning the family pension, the then Sub-Collector had directed the Tahsildar to consider the request and do the needful. However, the court also noted that since no action was taken, in 1989, Jaya had approached the District Collector who again directed the Tahsildar to consider the request. Since no action was taken, Jaya had approached the High Court where the single judge directed the authorities to make payment.

The court noted that during the pendency of the present appeal, Jaya had also died and Perumal’s son was impleaded into the appeal who himself was 60 year old and was suffering from certain ailments.

Calling the situation of the family “pathetic”, the court emphasised that though Perumal may have been working at the lowest ebb of the hierarchy, but the job entrusted to him was very pertinent and important. The court also added that though there may have been confusion with respect to which office had to clear the pension papers, that was an internal matter to be sorted out by the officials and the family could h=nto have been made to suffer for the same. The court added that this conduct of the authorities shirking from their responsibilities was becoming a routine

“The abdication of duty and shirking the responsibility now become a routine affair for the people who are sitting in a position to take a decision quickly to act upon in the interest of public and public good,” the court said.

The court thus opined that the authorities could take the present case as a model case to streamline the issues pertaining to settling family pensions and to bring in a mechanism in tune with the existing laws.

Thus, the court dismissed the appeal preferred by the authorities. Though the court was inclined to impose a cost of Rs. 10,000, opining that the authorities may use it as an excuse to delay payments by preferring appeals and use money from public exchequer unwarrantedly, the court dismissed the appeal without costs.

The court also directed the authorities to pay the benefits along with arrears due to Perumal’s family within a period of eight weeks.

Counsel for the Appellants: Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan Additional Government Pleader

Counsel for the Respondents: M/s.N.Gayathri for R2

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 309

Case Title: The Chennai District Collector and Others v T.V.S.Jaya Perumal (Died)

Case No: W.A.No.2445 of 2019

Click here to read/download the judgment