WP/35302/2026 of S.MALAR Vs The Registrar General on 2 September 2026

Order

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

Writ of Mandamus has been instituted seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to disburse death benefits/ terminal benefits due on the death of petitioner’s son S.Manikandan entirely to the petitioner and further direct the respondents 1 to 3 to deduct 50 percent of the gross pay from the salary of the 4th respondent to be credited directly to the savings bank account of the petitioner bearing No.43639144461 State Bank of India, Anna Nagar West Extension Branch towards her maintenance which shall continue till her lifetime.

2. The petitioner is the mother of Late S.Manikandan, who served as Office Assistant under the control of the Principal Judge, Labour Court, Chennai and died in harness on 12.01.2020, while in service. The fourth respondent is the daughter-in-law of the writ petition and the wife of the deceased employee Late S.Manikandan.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the writ petitioner has given an undertaking / No-Objection for providing compassionate appointment to the fourth respondent with a condition that the fourth respondent should maintain the writ petitioner. Pursuant to the undertaking, appointment on compassionate ground was granted to the fourth respondent and she is working in Judicial Department. However, the writ petitioner states that the fourth respondent has failed to honour her commitment and not maintaining her. Thus, she has chosen to file the present writ petition seeking settlement of terminal benefits due to her deceased son as well as to deduct 50% of the gross pay from the salary of the fourth respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents would oppose by stating that the compassionate appointment was not given merely based on the No- Objection given by the writ petitioner /mother-in-law, the fourth respondent secured an order from the High Court and in pursuance to the order, appointment on compassionate ground was issued. That apart, under the scheme of compassionate appointment, No-Objection from the mother-in-law of the fourth respondent is not at all required. Therefore, the very contention of the writ petitioner ie., non-maintenance of the writ petitioner by the fourth respondent after giving an undertaking is untenable.

5. The claim of the writ petitioner whether entertainable or not in the context of the Service Rules and Pension Rules are to be examined to ascertain the right of the petitioner to secure the relief in the present writ petition.

6. In respect of the terminal benefits due to the deceased employee Manikandan, it is to be disbursed including Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, Provident Fund etc., are to be settled in favour of the nominee as per the nomination given by the Government servants. As far as the deduction of 50% of the salary paid to the 4th respondent who is working in the Judicial Department is concerned, the same cannot be done by the employer in the absence of any order from the competent court of law. Non-maintenance of mother-in-law by the daughter-in-law is a disputed fact, which is to be adjudicated before the competent forum. High Court cannot adjudicate the disputed issues of this nature in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The disputed fact of non-maintenance of the mother-in- law by the daughter-in-law is to established based on the evidence, which is to be done in the manner known to law.

7. Regarding the terminal and pensionary benefits, it is to be disbursed in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and only in the event of securing court order from the competent court of law, the employer will be in a position to act based on the order, if any. The employer themselves have no powers under the Pension Rules to settle the terminal benefits contrary to the nomination given by the deceased employee.

8. At the outset, non-maintenance of mother-in-law by the daughter-in- law is the disputed fact, which is to be resolved in the manner known to law before the competent forum. However, in the present writ petition the High Court cannot adjudicate such issues and grant the relief as such sought for by the writ petitioner. Granting liberty to the petitioner to redress her grievance in accordance with law, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 02-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KST To

1. The Registrar General,Madras High Court, Chennai 104.

2. The Principal Judge, Labour court, Chennai 104

3. The Chief Administrative officer Principal Labour court, Chennai

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN J. KST WP No. 35302 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 39227 OF 2026 02-09-2026