- (1.) We have heard the pasties. The petitioner's husband the late K.S. Muthanna was serving as Assistant Conservator of Forests and at the time of his death on January 20, 1955 was posted at Palghat which formed part of the then State of Madras. After a lapse of nearly 27 years, the Chief Conservator of Forests, Madras by his letter dated March 22, 1982 intimated the petitioner that according to GOMS No. 748, Finance (Pension.) dated May 26, 1979 she would be entitled to family pension at a flat rate of Rs. 100 w.e.f. April 1, 1979 only if authorised by the Accountant-General, Madras. Unfortunately for the petitioner, the Accountant-General, Madras by his letter dated March 25, 1982 informed the Chief Conservator that since the husband of the petitioner had last served at Palghat which since stands transferred to the State of Kerala under the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the claim for payment of family pension to the petitioner did not arise in terms of the aforesaid GOMS. The Chief Conservator was therefore constrained by his letter dated April 27, 1982 to address the following letter to the petitioner : "As per G.O. Ms. No. 163, Finance (Pension), dated 18.3.82, you are not entitled for the flat rate of family pension extended in G.O. Ms. No. 748, Finance (Pension), dated 26.5.79, as the place Palghat, where your late husband last served at the time of his death now forms part of the Kerala State." The petitioner made the representation to the Accountant-General, Madras but it was of no avail.
(2.) We are satisfied that the Accountant-General was not at all justified in withholding his sanction to the payment of family pension to the petitioner. The view that since Palghat now forms part of State of Kerala, the State of Tamil Nadu was absolved of liability to pay family pension to the petitioner can hardly he sustained. The petitioner's husband was posted as Assistant Conservator of Forests at the time of his death at Palghat which formed part of the then State of Madras. Merely because after his death there was reorganisation of States on a linguistic basis, it could not afford a lawful justification for disallowing her claim for payment of family pension. There is no provision in the State Reorganisation Act that the liability for payment of family pension stands transferred to the successor State. The petitioner's husband last served the State of Madras and merely because he was posted at Palghat which now stands transferred to the State of Kerala, it does not become the liability of that State to pay such pension. Incidentally, all the pensionary benefits such as provident fund, gratuity etc. were indeed paid to her by the State of Madras and there was no ground whatever to hold that the petitioner was disentitled to draw her family pension now.
(3.) Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. We do declare that the petitioner was entitled to draw family pension and direct the State Government of Tamil Nadu to pay to her all the arrears of such family pension within four weeks from today, unless not already paid. We quantify the costs at Rs. 1, 000.;