Madras High Court
S.Govindaraj @ Sathya vs The District Educational Officer on 13 September, 2024
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
W.A.No.2745 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.D.KRISHNAKUMAR
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.A.No.2745 of 2024 and
C.M.P.No.20135 of 2024
S.Govindaraj @ Sathya ... Appellant/Petitioner
-vs-
1. The District Educational Officer,
O/o.District Educational Officer,
Krishnagiri-635 001.
2. Treasury Officer,
District Treasury,
Collector Office Campus,
Bangalore Road, Krishnagiri-635 001.
3. The Head Master,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Veppanapalli, Krishnagiri-635 121. ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to allow the Writ Appeal
by setting aside the order dated 29.01.2024 made by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.8218 of 2022 and directing the respondents herein to release terminal benefits,
provident fund and all dues of the petitioner's wife G.Subasini in GPF Number/CPS
Number:7000251112 of Government Higher Secondary School, Veppanapalli.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2745 of 2024
For Appellant : Mr.S.Vinod
For Respondents : Mr.U.M.Ravichandran
Spl. Govt. Pleader
*****
JUDGMENT
(By Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
This Writ Appeal has been filed, challenging the order dated 29.01.2024
made in W.P.No.8218 of 2022, in and by which, the Writ Petition was dismissed,
holding that the Writ Petitioner is not the nominee of his deceased wife.
2. Mr.U.M.Ravichandran, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice
for the respondents. By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for hearing at the
admission stage.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he married to one G.Subasini on
09.04.2017 and his wife was working as B.T.Graduate Science Teacher. When she went
to her parents' home, she suffered illness and died therein on 23.05.2021 on account of
Covid-19. It is further case of the petitioner that prior to their marriage, she had included
the names of her parents as nominees and had no occasion to change the same, pursuant
to which, her parents had made claims on the terminal benefits, which were not paid to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
him on account of rival claims. By referring to Section 15 of The Hindu Succession Act,
1956, he had filed a Writ Petition for disbursement of the amount to him, which was
dismissed by the learned Single Judge on erroneous consideration. Hence, the Writ
Petitioner is before this Court, seeking to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
4. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents
strenuously contended that the entitlement of shares in respect of terminal benefits of a
deceased employee had already been decided by the Apex Court in the case of Vishin
N.Khandchandani Vs. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani, reported in 2000 (6) SCC
724, which has been followed by this Court in a catena of judgments. He further
contended that remedy lies to the appellant only before the Civil Court to claim his share
and he cannot invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court to sort out a civil dispute.
5. The judgment referred to by the respondents (supra) had been followed
by one of us (ACJ), while sitting singly in W.P.No.2934 of 2010 decided on 16.12.2021
and held that if any dispute for withdrawal of terminal benefits arises amongst legal
heirs of a deceased employee, the parties have to work their remedy only before the
appropriate Civil Forum.
6. In view of the above settled legal position in the decisions cited supra, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dispute with regard to claiming the benefits of the deceased has to be agitated only
before the competent Civil Court and those judgments are squarely covered to the facts
of this case. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single
Judge and the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. The appellant is at liberty to
approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. It is made clear that
the period during which lis is pending before this Court can be excluded for the purpose
of computing the limitation. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
[D.K.K.,ACJ.] [P.B.B,J.]
13.09.2024
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
ar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1. The District Educational Officer,
O/o.District Educational Officer,
Krishnagiri-635 001.
2. Treasury Officer,
District Treasury,
Collector Office Campus,
Bangalore Road, Krishnagiri-635 001.
3. The Head Master,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Veppanapalli, Krishnagiri-635 121.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,
AND
P.B.BALAJI,J.,
ar
13.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
