@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K. Chandru, J.@mdashThe Petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ Petition seeking to challenge an order dated 28.4.2011 passed by
the 6th Respondent Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (pension), Chennai. By the impugned order, the 1st Respondent who was widow of
A. Ravi Shankar and a person who was subscriber to the Provident Fund, by his employer/2nd Respondent, was informed that she will be paid
monthly pension with effect from 12.3.2002. Challenging the said communication, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to set aside
the order dated 28.4.2011 in ordering family pension to the 1strespondent also and for a direction to the 5th and 6threspondents to sanction the
monthly pension under the provisions of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 to the petitioner.
2. In the writ petition, Notice of Motion was ordered on 1.6.2011. On behalf of the 1st Respondent, a counter affidavit dated 25.7.2011 was
filed. On behalf of the respondents 5 and 6, a common counter affidavit dated5.8.2011 was filed.
3. The facts are not in dispute in this case. The 1strespondent is the original wife of late L.R. Paranthaman who was employed in Mylapore Hindu
Permanent Fund Limited. The petitioner is the mother of late L.R. Parantham, who died on11.3.2002, The 1st Respondent being his wife and
widow applied for pension under Form 10-D. She was sanctioned the widow pension to the tune of Rs. 973/-per month under Pension Payment
Order dated 12.3.2002 and it was credited to her savings bank account, Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai 83. This Pension Payment Order was
prepared on 28.4.2011 based on the input data sheet of the Accounts Branch dated 6.4.2011. The 1st Respondent got remarried on 10.11.2002
to one Ravi Shankar. She was informed that she will not be eligible to get any family pension after the date of remarriage on 10.11.2002.
Therefore, she was eligible to get pension for the period of 7 months and the amount of Rs. 7689/-was credited into her account. The subsequent
amount credited, namely Rs. 1,06,673/-was a mistake and it was not collected by her and only a sum of Rs. 7689/-was credited into her Savings
Bank account.
4. The contention of the Petitioner was that the marriage between the 1st Respondent and her son was solemnized as per Hindu rites and custom
and there were no children out of the wedlock. But several criminal, police, civil and matrimonial proceedings were initiated by the 1strespondent
against her ex-husband and she had also filed a petition for divorce in O.P. No. 2104 of 1999 on the file of the 2nd Respondent Family Court.
This O.P was filed on the ground of impotency on the part of the late Paranthaman. Subsequently, the Petitioner''s son filed a petition u/s 13-B of
the Hindu Succession Act for consent divorce. Even while the proceedings were pending, her son died on 11.3.2002. It is claimed by the
Petitioner that her son was murdered by the 1st Respondent by engaging rowdy elements. Investigation is still pending. Though the matter was
closed as an accidental death, the Petitioner filed O.P. No. 193 of 2005 under the Indian Succession Act for getting succession certificate. The 1st
Respondent has filed a rival O.P No. 892 of 2005 for similar relief but only claiming for 1/2 share. By a common order dated18.9.2009, this
Court allowed the original Petition filed by her. It is stated that the Petitioner as well as the1st Respondent are entitled to succeed to half share in
respect of the dues payable to the late Paranthaman. It is claimed that the pension payable was not the subject matter of the Original Petition.
Therefore, when she applied for pension, the 1st Respondent has made a claim for sanction of widow pension under the Employees'' Pension
Scheme, 1995and got some sanction in her favour suppressing the fact of remarriage. Therefore, it was claimed that the pensions sanctioned in
favour of the 1st Respondent should be cancelled with a further direction to sanction family pension to the Petitioner.
5. This Court is not inclined to go into the acrimonious fights between the Petitioner and the 1st respondent being the mother-in-law and the
daughter-in-law. But, it is suffice that the 1st Respondent was widow of the petitioner''s son Paranthaman, who was the subscriber to the Provident
Fund. Subsequent to his death, being the widow, the 1st Respondent is entitled to have preference in claiming the family pension. Subsequent to
her remarriage, ever her eligibility to family pension will disappear. Only because the 1st Respondent was ceased to get the amount, the Employees
Pension Scheme does not provide for such a family pension being to be given to the mother.
6. A Family Pension Scheme, 1985 defines a family under Rule 2(vii), which includes the wife in case of a male member of the Employees Pension
Fund and only in the absence of wife being available, sons and daughters of the member of the Employees Pension Scheme will become eligible to
get family pension. The scheme is part of contributory scheme. The terms and conditions will have to be interpreted only in terms of the Scheme
and not in any other manner. Rule 16 provides for pension to the family only in the case of death of a member and Rule 16(2) talks about the
monthly widow pension and it is payable to widow up to the date of death of widow or remarriage whichever is earlier. Only in the absence of
widow being available, it is payable to the sons and daughters of the member. Only when there are surviving children, the monthly pension fund will
be provided as per Rule 16(iii). Therefore, the petitioner''s claim that she should be made eligible for pension does not stand in terms of the
statutory scheme and hence no case is made out. Further, the statement that the1st Respondent has received excessive amount, suppressing her
remarriage also is not borne out by records. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.