Ramprasath Vs The Principal Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, The District Collector, The Revenue Divisional Officer and The Tahsildar

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

K. Chandru, J.@mdashHeard Mr. A. Thirumurthy, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Mr. R. Janakiramulu, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the Respondents 2 to 4.

2. This is a strange Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner, who admittedly is the son of the second wife of Late K.S. Murugesan, who was employed as P.A. To the RDO, Uthamapalayam. He has come forward to challenge the memo dated 13.09.2010 issued by the RDO, Uthamapalayam viz., the 3rd Respondent, seeking their consent for deducting a sum of Rs. 6,69,590/-which became due and payable by the Late. Murugesan on account of the various loans obtained by him. The 3rd Respondent was informed by the first Respondent that these amount as they are due and payable by the deceased Government servant will have to be recovered from the DCRG the amount due were listed out in the 3 impugned order, they are as follows:

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that his mother C.M. Muthulakshmi, was married to the deceased K.S. Murugesan and when he died, in the communicationissued by the first Respondent, dated 12.05.2010,the name of the Petitioner also found as one of thelegal heir of Late K.S. Murugesan with a conditionthat they are eligible to get gratuities, Death-cum-Retirement Gratuities (DCRG) in equal shares. It is also the stand of the Petitioner that his mother has been recognized to get family pension. It is also admitted by the Petitioner in the affidavit that in the Succession Original Petition filed in S.O.P. No. 1/07, that a person, who drawing the pensionis Padmavathy and that the Succession OriginalPetition. was granted in favor of the said Padmavathi and her children and the Petitioner and two sisters. The name of his mother C.M. Muthulakshmiwas omitted. Therefore, his mother filed C.M.A. (MD) No. 383/2009, which is pending on the file of this Court.

4. The contention of the Petitioner was that he and his sisters being a legal heirs of the said C.M. Muthulakshmi, are entitled to get 50% of theshares of their father''s pension. But, whereas, due payable towards the house constructed by the deceased Murugesan, which was occupied by the children and the said Padmavathy, to exclusion of all other, they will not get any equal amount of arrears in the DCRG and therefore, pending finalization of the CMA, the amount should not be ordered to be recovered from the DCRG. Since they are having 50% of the share in the DCRG and pension, the question of grant of consent for deducting the amount, will not arise.

5. It is also claimed that the judgment of this Court in Kuppan v. Muniammal and Anr. reported in (2010 2 CTC 612) has held that pension is an inheritable property and therefore, he is entitled for 50%. This Court is not considering the share of the pension to which the Petitioner is eligible. It is only in the impugned order, the Petitioner and others were asked to give their consent for deducting the amount due and payable for the deceased Murugesan for the various loans available by him for which, the Department is bound to repay the same and that the Accountant General viz., the first Respondent has given a communication that these amounts should be adjusted against the DCRG payable. Therefore, after adjusting all the amount what is remaining only can be shared between the legal heirs and if at all the Petitioner is also considered as one of the legal heir for succeeding to the estate of Late Murugesan. In case the late Murugesan has left any due then there are also obligations for the legal heirs to pay those dues. But, what is now sought to be achieved by the Writ Petitioner is that if the amounts are paid, the entire house become free from encumbrance and the first wife and her children will have exclusively possession and occupation of the house, which will indirectly deprive the Petitioner and his sisters claiming the 50% of the pension. But, with reference to the DCRG payable under Rule 70 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules clearly states that it shall be the duty of every retiring Government servant to clear all Government dues before the date of retirement and when a Government servant retires and if he does not clear the Government dues and such dues as ascertainable, an equivalent cash deposit may betaken from him; or out of the gratuity payable to him an amount equal to that recoverable on account of ascertainable Government dues shall be deducted there from.

6. In the note appended to the said rule, the expression "ascertainable Government dues" includes balance of house building or conveyance advance, arrears or rent and other charges pertaining to occupation of Government accommodation, over-payment of pay and allowances and arrears of Income Tax deductible at source can be taken as the due to the Government. It is also further indicated in theNote-1, which is as follows:

It also includes dues to the local bodies or to the Staff Co-operative Societies comprising of Government servants and registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 [or to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board or to the Corporation owned/controlled by the State Government.]

7. Therefore, the dues indicated by the Respondent RDO are dues, which will ascertainable, which are recoverable under Rule 70. There is no question of even obtaining the consent of the partisan deducting the said amount. If at all the Petitioner and his sisters can succeed, it is only to the remaining estate of the deceased Government servant and they cannot fight over the amount, which are payable by the deceased Government servant for which he has borrowed loans from the various agency with a condition to repay through his pay drawing officer. It is open to the Petitioner to contend the CMA through his mother and get the rights towards the house, which is constructed by the deceased Government servant. But in the guise of filing the Writ Petition, he cannot force the official Respondents from recovering the amount due and payable by the deceased Government servant. The decision cited by the Petitioner has no relevant to the case on hand.

8. At this juncture, this Court is not inclined to go into the respective sharers the children and the wife are entitled to get. In the present case, the impugned order purely relates to recovery of dues from the estate of the deceased Government servant. The Writ Petition is misconceived and accordingly, stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.