Madras High Court
Anju. R vs R.Sheela on 19 October, 2024
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
W.A.No.3085 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.A.No.3085 of 2024 and
CMP No.23376 of 2024
1. Anju. R.
2. Akash. R
3. Arjun.R ... Appellants
Vs.
1. R.Sheela
2. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
CMDA Building, E & C Market Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107.
3. The Executive Engineer/Administrative Officer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Besant Nagar Division, No.63,
Dr.Muthu Lakshmi Road,
Venkata Rathinam Nagar, Adyar,
Chennai 600 020.
4. Maragatham ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside
the order dated 20.08.2024 passed in W.P.No.8545 of 2023 and
consequently, dismiss the said writ petition.
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3085 of 2024
For the Appellants : Mr.K.Indupriya
For the Respondents : Mr.D.Veerasekara,
Standing Counsel
for first and second respondent
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was delivered by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)
Assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.8545 of 2023, dated 20.08.2024, directing the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board to disburse the terminal benefits of the deceased Rajasekar to the first
respondent herein, instant writ appeal has been filed by the appellants, who
are the daughter and sons of the fourth respondent herein.
2. The first respondent herein, namely Mrs.R.Sheela has filed the
above writ petition to quash the impugned order passed by the Tamil Nadu
Housing Board dated 14.02.2019, asking her to get the succession
certificate from the competent court, in order to disburse the terminal
benefits of the deceased Rajasekar. Since the first respondent as well as the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
fourth respondent herein had claimed the terminal benefits, in the capacity
as wife of the deceased Rajasekar, the Board had passed the said impugned
order. The first respondent/ writ petitioner has claimed in the writ petition
that, she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Rajasekar and in the
Service Register also, the deceased had nominated her as nominee to receive
the death cum terminal benefits in case of his death. Hence, it is contended
by the first respondent that she is entitled to get the said benefits, without
producing such succession certificate, as sought for by the Board, because
the competent authority had already issued the legal heirship certificate in
favour of her and her only daughter Priya. Learned Single Judge, after
hearing both side and detailed discussion, has passed the order, as stated
supra; and also directed the fourth respondent herein to workout her remedy
independently before the civil court in accordance with law. The said order
is impugned herein.
3. According to the appellants, the fourth respondent, namely
Maragatham and the deceased Rajasekar had been living together as
husband and wife for the past 30 years and out of their wedlock, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellants born to them. It is the further case of the appellants that in the
community certificates and the Transfer Certificates issued in favour of
them, name of Rajasekar has been shown as their father. It is their
contention that legal heirship certificate also issued by the competent
authority, showing the name of the fourth respondent and the appellants
herein as legal heirs of the deceased Rajasekar. However, without
considering their case in proper perspective, learned Single Judge has
passed the impugned order and hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
4. It is not the disputed fact that the deceased Rajasekar had
nominated the first respondent herein in the capacity as wife in the service
register to receive his terminal benefits. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to
refer that one of us (DKKJ), while discussing the matter in W.P.No.2934 of
2010 dated 16.10.2021, discussed the issue of disbursement of terminal
benefits to the nominee and held as follows.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarabati Devi's case (cited supra)
[Sarabati Devi v. Another v Usha Devi [CDJ 1983 SC 144]
held that nomination only indicated the hand which is authorized to
receive the amount, on the payment of which the insurer get a valid
discharge of its liability under the policy and the amount, however, can
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the Law of
Succession governing them. The decision of this Court in Vidyaa Hari
Iyer's case cited supra [Vidyaa Hari Iyer v. M/s.Sundaram
Finance Limited [CDJ 2020 MHC 4925] emphasis the dictum
that the nominee has to be treated as a trustee and he is entitled to
receive the amount only and he has to pay the amount to the persons who
are entitled under Law of Succession.
5. In yet another case in W.P.No.19132 of 2017 dated 04.04.2024, a
Division Bench of this Court, [in which, one of us (DKKJ) is member] has
passed the following order:-
5. Admittedly, the petitioner is the second wife of the deceased
P.D.Janakaratchagan and her marriage was solemnized with him, while
his first wife namely J.Selvakumari was alive. Further, after two days
from the date of death of above P.D.Janakaratchagan, the first wife was
also died. According to the petitioner, the marriage invitation card,
family card, election card and nomination forms produced before this
court are proved that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the
deceased government servant and now the surviving legal heirs of the
above deceased are, only the petitioner and her two children and hence,
she is entitled for pension. Though it is stated by the petitioner that the
above second marriage was solemnized only with the consent of the first
wife, the same was took place during the subsistence of the first marriage.
Therefore, now the legal point to be decided is that “ Whether the
marriage of the petitioner is valid under law or the petitioner is legally
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
wedded wife of the deceased employee?”
6. At this juncture, it is useful to extract the Explanation
appended to Rule 49(7) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, [the
above explanation was added as per G.O.Ms.No.906, Finance (Pension)
Department, dated 06.12.1995], which runs as follows.
49. Family Pension
49(7)(c )Explanation:- For the purpose of this rule, the
second wife shall be eligible for the benefits of family
pension only if the second marriage-
(i) solemnised as per the customary law prevailed
among the community before the date of commencement of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Central Act 25 of 1955); or
(ii) Solemnised under the Mohammadan Law, in
which bigamy is permissible.
It is an admitted fact that the other terminal benefits were granted to the
petitioner. Therefore, the issue is only with regard to the entitlement of
the petitioner to the family pension upon the death of the deceased
employee. Even though the petitioner and her two children are the only
surviving legal heirs of the deceased government employee, in the light
of the above explanation, to get the family pension, the petitioner has to
prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased. In such
circumstances, we are of the view that this Court sitting under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, cannot go into issue of declaration as to
whether the marriage of the petitioner with the deceased government
servant is valid under law or not. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain
this writ petition and it is for the petitioner to approach the civil court to
substantiate her right and if such relief is granted to her, thereafter, she
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
can approach the authorities concerned for granting family pension.
6. Here in this case, the appellants themselves admitted that their
mother/ fourth respondent and the deceased Rajasekar had been living
together as husband and wife and in their wedlock, they born to them.
Though it is the contention of the appellants that in their community
certificates and the Transfer Certificate, name of deceased Rajasekar has
been mentioned as their father; and they are the legal heirs of the deceased
Rajasekar, as per the legal heirship certificate; and hence, they are entitled
to get the terminal benefits of the deceased employee, this Court sitting
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot go into above issues.
Therefore, in our view, learned Single has rightly observed as " the
terminal benefits that are handed over to the petitioner shall be held by
petitioner (first respondent herein) in trust. If the 3rd respondent(fourth
respondent herein) has a claim over the terminal benefits, the third
respondent (fourth respondent herein) can independently workout her
remedy against the petitioner (first respondent herein) before the Civil
Court in accordance with law. The order passed in this writ petition will
not come in the way of the third respondent (fourth respondent herein) to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
workout her remedy in accordance with law". As such, we do not find
any reason to interfere with the above said order, as the remedy for the
appellants is available only before the civil court.
7. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
the official respondents are taking steps to disburse the entire amount to the
first respondent and hence, seeks to pass necessary order.
8. Though we are not inclined to pass any order in this regard, learned
counsel for the official respondents undertakes that they will not disburse
the amount to the first respondent for a period of one week from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
9. Recording the above submission, this writ petition is dismissed.
with liberty to approach the civil court. There shall be no order as to costs.
Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(D.K.K.J.) (P.B.B.J.)
19.10.2024
Internet: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Index : Yes/No
mst
To
1. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
CMDA Building, E & C Market Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107.
2. The Executive Engineer/Administrative Officer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Besant Nagar Division, No.63,
Dr.Muthu Lakshmi Road,
Venkata Rathinam Nagar, Adyar,
Chennai 600 020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
and
P.B.BALAJI, J.
mst
19.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
