Medical certificate enough for disabled to get family pension: Madurai bench of Madras HC
MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has observed that pensioners' children, who suffer intellectual disability, should be given family pension on submission of medical certificate evidencing his or her incapacity to earn livelihood on their own, without insisting on certificate denoting income from all sources.
A bench of justices GR Swaminathan and K Rajasekar made the observation recently while hearing an appeal filed by the principal accountant general of Tamil Nadu against an order passed by the court directing payment of family pension to the intellectually challenged son of a forester. While hearing the appeal, the judges said though the order had been complied with in this case, the daughter of a late judge with similar difficulties was not lucky and expressed anguish over the delay.
The judges recalled that the widow of former acting Chief Justice of Madras High Court TS Arunachalam received pension since 2020. After her death in June 2024, their younger daughter filed an application seeking family pension for her sister, who has physical and intellectual disability.
After submission of all documents, the accountant general's (AG's) office forwarded it to the Union Ministry of Law and Justice to obtain sanction from the President of India. Later, the AG's office forwarded a letter from the Government of India seeking the very same set of documents and the matter is pending at this stage, the judges noted.
Expressing anguish over her struggle in getting pension, the judges called upon the Registrar General of Madras High Court to liaison with the authorities concerned and ensure that she gets family pension at the earliest.
They pointed out that both the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules and the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules make it clear that the son or daughter suffering from disorder or disability of mind, which prevents him or her from earning livelihood, will be entitled to family pension for life after the demise of the parents, upon production of a medical certificate proving the disability.
When the statutory rule doesn't mention requirement of any other document, the authority cannot ask for anything more, the judges added. This issue was settled by the Supreme Court three decades ago and the said decision has been consistently followed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
6 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
'Bengaluru's cosmopolitan life very alluring': SC rejects government doctors' plea against transfers
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a plea by a group of government doctors challenging their transfers out of Bengaluru, observing that the city's cosmopolitan lifestyle cannot be a valid ground to resist relocation. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran said there was no prejudice caused by the transfers. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran said there was no prejudice caused by the transfers and emphasised that other regions in Karnataka are also well-developed. (Also Read: 'Never went to kitty parties': Nithin and Nikhil Kamath's mom says children were her life) 'The cosmopolitan life of Bengaluru is very alluring. But other areas of Karnataka are also developed. You are a privileged class of society. If you oppose transfers, what about others? We are not inclined to entertain the appeal,' the bench remarked. The doctors had approached the top court against the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Transfer of Medical Officers and other Staff) Rules, 2025, which govern the transfer of medical officers and health department staff across the state. The Karnataka High Court had earlier declined to stay the implementation of these rules, holding that the 2025 regulations were framed under the state's powers granted by the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Transfer of Medical Officers and other Staff) Act, 2011. The court noted that the Act does not prescribe any specific timeframe between the publication of draft rules and their finalisation. The petitioners had raised objections over the short notice period, claiming they were given only a week to respond to the draft rules. They also argued that the draft made no mention of "Greater Bengaluru," and its subsequent inclusion in the final notification was procedurally flawed. Despite these contentions, the Supreme Court declined to interfere, effectively upholding the High Court's view and allowing the state to proceed with the transfers. (With PTI inputs) (Also Read: Karnataka Minister Parameshwara asks students not to ruin lives with drugs)
Time of India
6 hours ago
- Time of India
'Life very alluring': Why SC rejected doctors' plea against transfer from Bengaluru; a 'privileged class' observation
File photo NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to hear a plea by a group of government doctors challenging their transfer orders from Bengaluru, remarking that the city's cosmopolitan lifestyle is 'very alluring' but not grounds to resist relocation. A bench comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran observed that there was no prejudice caused by transferring the doctors out of Bengaluru. "The cosmopolitan life of Bangalore is very alluring. The others areas of Karnataka are also developed. You are a privileged class of society. If you will oppose transfer what will happen to others. We are not inclined to entertain the appeal," the bench said, according to news agency PTI. The court was hearing a petition filed by doctors against the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Transfer of Medical Officers and other Staff) Rules, 2025, which govern the transfer of medical personnel in the state's Health and Family Welfare Department. Earlier, the Karnataka high court had refused to stay the implementation of the 2025 rules. The high court noted that the rules were framed under the powers granted by Section 12 of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Transfer of Medical Officers and other Staff) Act, 2011, which does not prescribe any specific time gap between the publication of draft rules and their finalisation. The petitioners argued that the government provided only a week's time to submit objections to the draft rules, which they claimed was inadequate. They also contended that the draft rules made no mention of "Greater Bengaluru" and that its inclusion in the final notification was impermissible under the law.
The Hindu
8 hours ago
- The Hindu
‘If you oppose transfer what will happen to others': Supreme Court refuses docs plea against transfer
The Supreme Court on Thursday (June 26, 2025) called Bengaluru's cosmopolitan life "very alluring" as it refused to examine a plea by government doctors against their transfers out of the city. A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran noted no prejudice if the doctors were transferred out of Bengaluru. "The cosmopolitan life of Bangalore is very alluring. The others areas of Karnataka are also developed. You are a privileged class of society. If you oppose transfer what will happen to others. We are not inclined to entertain the appeal," the Bench said. The top court was hearing a plea filed by a group of doctors challenging the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Transfer of Medical Officers and other Staff) Rules, 2025 which regulates the transfer of medical officers and other staff within the state's health and family welfare department. The Karnataka High Court had prevously refused to stay the rules, saying the 2025 rules were enacted in exercise of state's power under Section 12 of Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Transfer of Medical Officers and other Staff) 2011 Act, which would not specify any time between the publication of draft and finalisation of draft rules. The petitioners questioned the rules, citing only a week's time to file objections to the draft rules. They submitted the draft rules had no concept of Greater Bengaluru and incorporation of Greater Bengaluru in the final notification was impermissible.
