WP/15423/2022 of A.Elango Vs Director of Pensions on 15 October 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 08.09.2020.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that his representation

WP No. 15423 of 2022

is to release a sum of Rs.50,000/- which is available with the respondents under the Family Security Fund.

3. In the counter statement filed by the respondents, they have come up with a strong defence that the respondents are under no legal obligation to remit the said amount. Therefore, they seek to go into the merits of the case.

4. The case of the petitioner is that one Thiripurasundari was a P.G. Assistant in Girls Higher Secondary School, Ramnad, and that she retired from the service on 31.08.1994. Immediately after her retirement, her husband Mr.Kalaikoothan was also died on 28.06.1996. While so, the said Thiripurasundari died on 08.03.2019.

4.1. The petitioner is none other than the sister’s son of the deceased Thiripurasundari and that the said Thiripurasundari has adopted him and this petitioner is an adopted son of the Thiripurasundari. The learned counsel would rely upon the entry made in the petitioner’s service record, wherein one Mr.Kalaikoothan and A.Elango were nominated and in the name of Elango, he has been described as a sister’s son (adopted son).

5. Hence, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner having been nominated already by the deceased aunt, there cannot

WP No. 15423 of 2022

be any serious objection to the respondents to sanction a sum of Rs.50,000/-, which is available in the Family Security Fund. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after the demise of the deceased Thiripurasundari on 18.07.2019, the respondents have settled a sum of Rs.10,324/- being the arrear of the pension amount to the petitioner. Having taken such defence, now the refusal to pay the family security fund is irrational and hence prays to issue a Mandamus to release the said fund.

6. The said contention was totally objected by learned Special Government Pleader. He would contend that the petitioner has not proved that he is a legally adopted son of the deceased Thirupurasundari. Therefore, when such issue is to be decided, the respondents cannot be directed by way of a Mandamus to release the fund. He further submitted that the petitioner could establish such claim before the jurisdictional civil court and only on production of succession certificate, they would settle the amount. Hence prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

8. On a perusal of the counter statement and from the submissions of learned Special Government Pleader, it is seen that the employment of the

WP No. 15423 of 2022

Thiripurasundari and her entitlement for the family security fund of Rs.50,000/- are not disputed by the respondents. The registration of the petitioner’s name as a nominee in the service record of the deceased Thiripurasundari is also not disputed. However, it is the specific objection of the respondents that unless there is a clear proof to show that he is a legally adopted son, the question of sanctioning the family security fund to the petitioner is contrary to law.

9. While considering the above submissions, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, whenever any nomination is mentioned in the service record, it does not mean that it is a bequeath. However, it could only be construed as a trusteeship and having the petitioner’s name already been registered as a nominee and that the other legal heir viz. Thiripurasundari’s husband predeceased her and there could not have been any objection to release such amount to the petitioner in the capacity of a trustee. As a matter of fact, there are not rival claim so far.

10. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that he would indemnify the respondents in case of any future claims that would arise after the disbursement of the said amount to this petitioner.

11. Considering the above submissions, and also considering the fact that the petitioner’s name finds place as a nominee in the service record of the

WP No. 15423 of 2022

Thiripurasundari, which factum is not seriously disputed by the respondents, this court is of the firm view that there cannot be any illegality to direct the respondents to release the family security fund of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner, on getting an indemnity bond from the petitioner to the effect that if any future claim would arise, he would indemnify the same.

12. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. The respondents are directed to disburse the family security fund to the petitioner in accordance with the nomination given by the Thirupurasundari, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on obtaining necessary indemnity bond from the petitioner as indicated above. No costs. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KAS To

1. Director of Pensions Nandhanam, Chennai- 35.

2. Pension Pay Officer, Treasuries and Accounts Department Nandhanam, Chennai- 35.

WP No. 15423 of 2022

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. KAS WP No. 15423 of 2022 15-10-2026