Disposed¶38

Nallammal v. The Managing Director

Madras HC13 Oct 2025WP(MD)/10172/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TASMAC death-cum-terminal benefits and pensionary benefits of deceased District Manager; writ of mandamus under Article 226; representation dated 10.05.2022; competing claims of mother, first wife, her son and alleged second wife; customary divorce contention; disputed questions of fact; civil court adjudication; liberty granted; writ disposed; no costs; impleadment order dated 18.06.2025 in W.M.P.(MD)No.8911 of 2024; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Abdul Quddhose J.; decided 13.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the respective parties to agitate their rights before the Civil Court regarding disbursement of the death-cum-terminal benefits and pensionary benefits payable to late Baskaran by TASMAC; no costs. ¶38

Nallammal Vs The Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the sixth respondent (alleged by the petitioner to be the second wife of late Baskaran) is entitled to any share of the death-cum-terminal benefits and pensionary benefits of late Baskaran, and how such benefits payable by the official respondents (TASMAC) are to be apportioned among the petitioner, the fourth respondent, the fifth respondent and the sixth respondent. +1 more

¶31

Ratio / Principle

As disputed questions of fact are involved in the parties' competing claims to the death-cum-terminal benefits and pensionary benefits of late Baskaran, only a Civil Court can adjudicate the same.

¶37

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the respective parties to agitate their respective rights before the Civil Court with regard to the disbursement of the death-cum-terminal benefits and pensionary benefits payable to late Baskaran by the official respondents (TASMAC); no costs awarded.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Madurai Bench, Madras High Court) by Nallammal, mother of late Baskaran, who worked as District Manager, TASMAC, Theni, seeking a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution directing respondents 1 to 3 (TASMAC officials) to disburse his death-cum-terminal benefits and pensionary benefits to her pursuant to her representation dated 10.05.2022. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent was Baskaran's first wife, the fifth respondent the fourth respondent's son, and the sixth respondent (impleaded by Court order dated 18.06.2025 in W.M.P.(MD)No.8911 of 2024) his second wife, whom the petitioner held not legally wedded and thus not entitled to any share; the sixth respondent's counsel contended she was entitled to a share, claiming the first marriage had ended through customary divorce. Petitioner's counsel offered no objection to the fourth respondent, the fifth respondent and the sixth respondent's son sharing the benefits. Amicable settlement attempts before the Court failed. Holding that disputed questions of fact were involved which only a Civil Court could adjudicate, Abdul Quddhose, J., disposed of the writ petition on 13.10.2025, granting liberty to all parties to agitate their rights before the Civil Court regarding disbursement of the benefits by TASMAC, with no costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.10172 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.10172 of 2022

Nallammal

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Managing Director,

¶11

Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), 4th Floor CMDA Tower-2,

¶12

Egmore, Chennai.

¶13

2.The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), Plot No.100, Anna Nagar, Madurai-625 020.

¶14

3.The District Manager,

¶15

Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), IMFS Depot, Karuvelnaikenpatti, Theni-625 531

¶16

4.Adhlakshmi

¶17

5.Aravind

¶18

6.K.Kavitha Rani ... Respondents (Respondent No.6 is impleaded vide Court order dated 18.06.2025 in W.M.P. (MD.No.8911 of 2024 in W.P.(MD).No.10172 of 2022)

¶19

1/5

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.(MD)No.10172 of 2022

¶22

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents Nos.1 to 3 to disburse the death-cum-terminal benefits and pensionary benefits of the petitioner's son namely late Baskaran, who was worked as District Manager TASMAC, Theni, to the Petitioner on the basis of the Petitioner's representation dated 10.05.2022 within a time frame to be stipulated by Court.

¶23

For Petitioner : Ms.K.Asha For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.S.Sivanesan, Standing Counsel For R-4 & R-5 : Mr.V.Jawahar Srinivasan For R-6 : Ms.Sherlin Sheeba

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus seeking for a direction

¶26

to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to disburse the death-cum-terminal benefits and pensionary benefits of the petitioner's son, namely, late Baskaran, who was worked as District Manager, TASMAC, Theni, to the Petitioner, based on the Petitioner's representation dated 10.05.2022, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶27

2/5

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.10172 of 2022

¶30

2. The petitioner claims that the fourth respondent is the first wife of late Baskaran, who worked as District Manager, TASMAC, Theni and the sixth respondent is his second wife. However, the petitioner contends that the sixth respondent is not entitled for death-cum-terminal benefits and pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner's son, late Baskaran. The fifth respondent is the son of the fourth respondent.

¶31

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that she has no objection for granting 1/3 rd share out of the terminal benefits and pensionary benefits to the fourth respondent, the fifth respondent and the sixth respondent's son. However, the petitioner is not willing to give any share out of the death-cum-terminal benefits and pensionary benefits payable to the deceased Baskaran to the sixth respondent, since, according to the petitioner, the sixth respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased Baskaran.

¶32

4. The learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent would submit that the petitioner's son Baskaran, had divorced his first wife, namely, the fourth respondent, based on customary rights, which contention is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Therefore, she would submit that 3/5

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.10172 of 2022

¶35

the sixth respondent is also entitled for a share from and out of the death-cum terminal benefits and pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner's son, late Baskaran.

¶36

5. The parties have tried to arrive at an amicable settlement and several opportunities were granted to them by this Court for arriving at an amicable settlement. But, despite the same, they have failed to enter into an amicable settlement.

¶37

6. Since there are disputed questions of fact involved, as seen from the above observations, necessarily, only a Civil Court can adjudicate the same.

¶38

7. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the respective parties to agitate their respective rights before the Civil Court with regard to the disbursement of the death-cum-terminal benefits and pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner's son, late Baskaran, by the official respondents (TASMAC). No costs.

¶39

13.10.2025

¶40

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no TSG

¶41

4/5

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.10172 of 2022

¶44

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J