Family pension cannot be denied solely because mental disability manifested after the prescribed age.

The petitioner, C. Mercy, was the daughter of C.P. Chakkuni, who served as a Naick in the Tamil Nadu Special Police, III Battalion, and retired on 31 May 1979.

He died on 22 April 2012, and the petitioner’s mother died in January 2014.

The petitioner, born on 24 September 1984, suffered from chronic schizophrenia and was represented by her sister and caregiver, I. Rosely.

The petitioner applied for family pension under Rule 49(6) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

The claim was rejected by the Principal Accountant General on the ground that her mental disability manifested only after the age of 25 years, and that she was therefore ineligible for lifelong family pension.

A medical report dated 23 September 2019 indicated that the petitioner had suffered from chronic schizophrenia for approximately five years, with the disability being treated as having manifested at about the age of 29 years.

The petitioner consequently challenged the rejection order dated 22 November 2022 under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether Rule 49(6) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 bars payment of lifelong family pension to a daughter whose mental disability manifests after she attains the age of 25 years.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to family pension despite the Government clarification stating that disability manifesting after the age of 25 years would not qualify for pension.

Whether family pension could be disbursed directly to the petitioner without insisting upon a guardianship certificate.

The Court applied Rule 49(6)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, including its proviso, which provides lifelong family pension to a son or daughter suffering from a mental disorder, mental retardation, or physical disability that renders the person unable to earn a livelihood, whether the handicap manifests before or after the retirement or death of the Government servant.

Rule 49(6)(iii)(iv) requires the sanctioning authority to be satisfied, on the basis of a certificate from a medical officer not below the rank of Civil Surgeon, that the disability prevents the person from earning a livelihood; Rule 49(6)(iii)(v) requires periodic medical certification.

The Court further relied on Rule 49(6)(iii)(i), which recognises the entitlement of a disabled child even where payment is postponed until the last minor child attains the prescribed age.

It held that the Government clarification dated 13 September 2004, and the similar clarification dated 30 September 2004 referred to in the Division Bench decision, could not override the statutory Rule.

The Court followed The Senior Accounts Officer v. N.S. Chandrasekaran, W.A.(MD) No.773 of 2026, which held that Rule 49(6) contains no restriction against pension merely because the disability manifests after the age of 25 years.

The Court found that the petitioner’s disability had manifested at approximately 29 years of age, but held that the proviso to Rule 49(6)(iii) expressly covers a handicap manifesting either before or after the retirement or death of the Government servant.

The Rule focuses on the substantive condition—whether the disability renders the claimant unable to earn a livelihood—not on the age at which the disability first manifests.

The Court also reasoned that Rule 49(6)(iii)(i), which postpones payment in certain cases until younger minor children attain the prescribed age, demonstrates that the Rule contemplates entitlement even where payment arises after the claimant has crossed the age of 25 years.

Accordingly, the administrative clarification imposing an additional age-of-manifestation restriction was inconsistent with the statutory Rule and could not justify rejection of the petitioner’s claim.

However, the Court distinguished entitlement to pension from the manner of disbursement and held that payment through a guardian could appropriately be insisted upon for the petitioner’s protection.

The rejection order dated 22 November 2022 was set aside, and the respondents were directed to sanction and pay the family pension, together with arrears, within four weeks from receipt of the order.

The Court declined to direct payment directly to the petitioner without a guardianship certificate.

It held that the pension could be paid through an appropriate guardian and directed the petitioner to approach the District Collector for renewal or extension of the guardianship certificate, if necessary, with the application to be decided within two weeks.