Disposed

Srirangavalli v. the District Collector

Madras HC29 Jul 2015WP(MD)/9329/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Corporation to equally share terminal benefits with the petitioner and the third respondent, contingent on the petitioner returning 6 sovereigns of jewels to the third respondent in the Corporation's presence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to return 6 sovereigns of jewels to 3rd respondent for the Corporation to disburse 50% benefits to each within 2 months.

Srirangavalli Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.07.2015 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.(MD)No.9329 of 2015

Srirangavalli

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶8

2.The District Manager,

¶9

Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., (TASMAC) Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶10

3.Lakshmi

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to settle the terminal benefits of the deceased Muthu, Son of Sonai Thevar to the petitioner within the stipulated period.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Marimuthu For Respondents : Mr.R.Anandraj, G.A.for R1 Mr.M.Muniyasamy, for R2 Mr.S.Thirunavukarasu for R3

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Writ petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to settle the terminal benefits of the deceased Muthu to the petitioner.

¶16

2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the mother of the deceased Muthu, who was an employee in the 2^nd respondent / Corporation and he died while in service. The deceased married the 3^rd respondent. However, the nomination is in the name of the petitioner and hence, the petitioner claimed that she is entitled to the entire terminal benefits due to her son viz., Muthu. That apart, it is stated that the deceased did not live peacefully with the 3^rd respondent and due to the dispute between her son and the 3^rd respondent, on 16.06.2013, the deceased Muthu committed suicide by consuming poison and hence, the 3^rd respondent alone is responsible for the death of the petitioner. The criminal case has been registered in Crime No.66 of 2013 under Section 174 Cr.P.C., and a compliant has been given by the petitioner's husband, in which, it has been stated that due the dispute between the deceased Muthu and the 3^rd respondent, the deceased Muthu committed suicide.

¶17

3.It is the further case of the petitioner that there was a negotiation between the petitioner's family and the family members of the 3^rd respondent. Based on that, the petitioner has handed over the jewels and Sridhana articles to the 3^rd respondent and on 05.09.2013 and 26.08.2014, the 3^rd respondent has executed a deed of relinquishment on her own will for getting the terminal benefit by the petitioner. In spite of the representation of the petitioner to the respondents for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ getting the terminal benefits of the deceased Muthu, no action has been taken by the respondent / Corporation and hence, the petitioner has filed the present Writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.

¶18

¶19

4.The 3^rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that she has not agreed for the entire terminal benefit being given to the petitioner and the petitioner agreed to return 6 sovereigns of jewels to her and that if the same is returned to her, she will give up 50% of the terminal benefits due to the deceased Muthu.

¶20

5.In reply, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is willing to return 6 sovereigns of jewels. He further submitted that it is not correct as the petitioner and her husband demanded jewels, but, the parents of the 3^rd respondent, on their own will, have given the jewels to her daughter and the 3^rd respondent is now ready and willing to receive 6 sovereigns of jewels. To that effect, the 3^rd respondent has also filed an affidavit. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner has agreed for the said proposal.

¶21

6.The learned standing counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent has produced a communication dated 15.06.2015 asking the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent to appear before them along with the documents mentioned therein to get their share due to the deceased Muthu.

¶22

7.Taking note of the submissions made on either side, the following orders are passed -

¶23

i)The petitioner shall return 6 sovereigns of jewels to the 3^rd respondent in the presence of the 2^nd respondent so that the 2^nd respondent will be in a position to disburse 50% of the terminal benefits to the petitioner and other 50% to the 3^rd respondent.

¶24

ii)Both the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent will have to produce necessary documents as required by the 2^nd respondent by the communication dated 15.06.2015.

¶25

iii)The 2^nd respondent shall disburse the terminal benefits equally to the petitioner as well as the 3^rd respondent, within a period of 2 months from the date of handing over the jewels by the petitioner to the 3^rd respondent.

¶26

8.The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar (AE) /True Copy/

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 2.The District Manager,

¶32

Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., (TASMAC) Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶33

+1cc to MR.G.MARIMUTHU, Advocate in SR.No. 42413

¶34

+1CC THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, IN SR.NO. 43189

¶35

Nbj

¶36

SR : 19.08.2015 : 2p/5c

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶38

W.P.(MD)No.9329 of 2015 29.07.2015

Srirangavalli v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srirangavalli v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.G.Ramamoorthi Vs The Commissioner(Adjudication)

Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs the State Transport Authority

S. Chandrasekaran Vs the Tamilnadu State Transport

M.Aranganathan Vs the District Employment

V. Gandhimathi Vs the Director of Social Welfare

M. Ramalingam, Vs the Joint Director