Madras High Court
WP/1467/2022 of R.Janani Vs The Chairman on 11 September 2026
WP No. 1467 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 1467 of 2022
and
W.M.P.Nos.1610 & 1612 of 2022
1. R.Janani
2. R.Kathir
..Petitioners
Vs
1. The Chairman,
Chennai Port Trust,
Chennai- 600 001.
2. The Chief Mechanical Engineer,
Chennai Port Trust,
Chennai - 600 001.
3. Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai- 600 001.
4. Basanti Pillay
5. R.Phoomika
(Minor, Rep. by her mother Mrs.Basanti Pillay)
..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to duly disburse the appropriate quantum of Sums Payable to the Petitioners, Family pension and Death- Cum- Retirement benefits on the Demise of Mr.M.Ramalingam, Son of Late. Madurai, Employee Code.33522, Technician Grade I (Mechanical) at Chennai Port Trust, died on 03.05.2021 among the legal heirs as declared by the Tahsildar, Pallavaram Taluk in his legal heir certificate dated 24.03.2022, (Prayer amended as per order dated 01.04.2025 in W.M.P.No.10475 of 2023 in
( Uploaded on: 25/09/2026 06:16:15 pm )
WP No. 1467 of 2022
W.P.No.1467 of 2022 by NMJ)
For Petitioners:
Mr.B.Prashanth Nadaraj
For Respondents:
Mr.R.Karthikeyan for R1 to R3
Mr.S.Sathish for R4 & R5
Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi
Standing Counsel for Port Trust
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to duly disburse the appropriate quantum of sums payable to the petitioner towards family pension and death-cum-retiral benefits on the demise of M.Ramalingam.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said M.Ramalingam, who was an employee of the first respondent Port Trust, had two wives. The first wife was Nirmala and the second wife is the fourth respondent herein. Admittedly, the first wife died. The said M.Ramalingam after obtaining divorce from the first wife, married the fourth respondent. Out of the said wedlock, the fifth respondent was born. The petitioners are the children through the first wife, Nirmala. The relationship between the parties has not been seriously disputed. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the terminal benefits have to be settled equally between the
( Uploaded on: 25/09/2026 06:16:15 pm )
WP No. 1467 of 2022
petitioners and the fourth and fifth respondents.
3. At this juncture, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the deceased M.Ramalingam was entitled to death-cum- retiral gratuity. The death-cum-retiral gratuity was Rs.13,57,000/-, whereas he had availed a loan to the tune of Rs.11,72,000/-. After deducting Rs.11,72,000/-, since the name of the fourth respondent was mentioned as the nominee, a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- was settled to her on 16.11.2021.
6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners’ share has also been paid to the fourth respondent, since she being the legally wedded second wife of their father.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondents would contend that they have been taking care of the petitioners and that only on account of the petitioners’ education and other purposes, her husband, namely, M.Ramalingam, had borrowed a loan and the loan was adjusted through Death- cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) and whatever amount was received was only a sum of Rs.1,85,000/-, in which the petitioners cannot have a share.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.
( Uploaded on: 25/09/2026 06:16:15 pm )
WP No. 1467 of 2022
9. While looking into the factual position, the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the name of the fourth respondent was mentioned as the nominee. It is a well-settled principle of law that mere nomination cannot be termed as a bequeath. On the other hand, the nominee is only a trustee to receive the balance amount on behalf of all the legal heirs. Therefore, as rightly contended by the petitioner, merely because a certain amount has been received by the fourth respondent as DCRG, the petitioners, being a legal heirs, are also entitled to their rightful share, which cannot be denied. However, since the respondents have already disbursed the amount, the question of issuing a direction to the fourth respondent would not arise by way of a writ petition. However, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the appropriate forum to work out his remedy in accordance with law. If any suit or other petition is filed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the concerned forum or Court is directed to number the same without insisting upon the period of limitation.
10. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
11-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No NSL
( Uploaded on: 25/09/2026 06:16:15 pm )
WP No. 1467 of 2022
To
1. The Chairman, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai- 600 001.
2. The Chief Mechanical Engineer, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai - 600 001.
3. Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai- 600 001.
( Uploaded on: 25/09/2026 06:16:15 pm )
WP No. 1467 of 2022
C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NSL WP No. 1467 of 2022 11-09-2026
( Uploaded on: 25/09/2026 06:16:15 pm )