Disposed¶52

Mrs.Rukmani, v. The Managing Director

Mandamus – terminal benefits of missing employee

Madras HC28 Mar 2025WP/17618/2018

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

terminal benefits; missing employee; non-traceable certificate; death certificate; suit for declaration; declaration of death after seven years; decree; mandamus; Article 226; Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board; driver; FIR Cr.No.1026/1997; writ petition disposed

What did the court decide?

Since the husband is only missing and not traceable, the petitioner cannot produce a death certificate; it is obligatory on her to file a suit for declaration that the husband, not found for more than seven years, be declared dead, and thereafter produce the decree to the respondents to enable them to process the disbursal of the terminal benefits payable to him. ¶44

Mrs.Rukmani, Vs The Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP No. 17618 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 28-03-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

WP No. 17618 of 2018

¶7

Mrs.Rukmani, W/o.P.Kumar@Indhirakumar, residing at No.20/149, South Redhills Road, Villivakkam, Chennai-49.

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

1. The Managing Director,

¶11

Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board, No.31, Kamarajar Salai, chepauk, Chennai-5.

¶12

2.The Executive Engineer, Zone 24, Poonamallee, Chennai.

¶13

3.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board, Mechanical Division, Trichy.

¶14

4.The Executive Engineer,

¶15

Tamil Nadu Water And Drainage Board, Village Water Plant Zone, Vellore.

¶16

Respondent(s)

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

WP No. 17618 of 2018

¶19

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to disburse the benefits of the petitioners husband worked under the respondents as driver, based upon the representation given by the petitioner dated 05.06.2017

¶20

For Petitioner(s): M/s.A.Manojkumar

¶21

For Respondent(s): M/s.S.Silambanan Senior Counsel Assisted by Ms.Megala

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to disburse the

¶24

benefits of the petitioner's husband who worked under the respondents as driver,

¶25

based upon the representation given by the petitioner dated 05.06.2017.

¶26

Mr.A.Manojkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted

¶27

that the petitioner's husband P.Kumar was employed as Lorry Driver with the

¶28

first respondent on 01.07.1970 and thereafter he worked with the respondents 2

¶29

and 3 as Driver. The petitioner's husband found missing all of a sudden from 25.02.1997 onwards. After searching him at several places, the petitioner had

¶30

given a complaint before the Villiavakkam Police station on 11.7.1997, and FIR

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

WP No. 17618 of 2018

¶33

has been registered in Cr.No.1026/1997. As the petitioner's husband was not

¶34

traceable, the police has issued an non-traceable certificate on 11.10.2016.

¶35

The petitioner has made a representation basing on the non-traceable

¶36

certificate, claiming the terminal benefits of her husband who was working as

¶37

Driver with the respondents.

¶38

Ms.Megala, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents,

¶39

submitted that unless the petitioner produces a death certificate or decree of the

¶40

Court declaring the death of the petitioner, it is not possible and disburse the

¶41

terminal benefits of her husband.

¶42

Even according to the petitioner, her husband was found missing and

¶43

he was not traceable. So the petitioner cannot produce a death certificate by

¶44

declaring that her husband is no more. It is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to file a suit for declaration to declare that her husband is not found

¶45

for more than seven year and that he should be declared to be dead and

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

WP No. 17618 of 2018

¶48

thereafter, produce a decree to the respondents in order to enable them to

¶49

process the disbursal of the terminal benefits payable to her husband. Unless the

¶50

petitioner could produce the said proof, no direction can be issued to the