Dismissed¶38

S.Vanmathi v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC4 Jun 2026WP/18817/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, single Judge (P.T. Asha, J.), WP No. 18817 of 2026, decided 04-06-2026. Keywords: pension; service benefits; deceased government employee; family of deceased employee; dismissal from service; Rule 17 (b) Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules; suspension Section 17 (b); Office Assistant regularized 28.05.1993; death 08.06.2021; unactioned representations dated 23.07.2021, 28.02.2026 and reply dated 16.03.2026; Rural Development and Panchayatraj Department; District Collector Krishnagiri; Assistant Director (Audit) Panchayat Development Department; writ of mandamus under Article 226; petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's husband, having been dismissed from service, is not entitled to pension, and consequently the relief claimed cannot be granted. ¶37

S.Vanmathi Vs The Secretary to Government — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to be granted the service benefits and pension of her deceased husband Senthilkumar, notwithstanding his dismissal from service in 2019 under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which he never challenged and in respect of which he never claimed pension during his lifetime.

¶37

Court's answer

The petitioner's husband, having been dismissed from service, is not entitled to pension, and consequently the relief claimed cannot be granted.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's husband did not challenge his dismissal till his death and also did not claim pension during his lifetime; these findings underpin the denial of relief to the petitioner.

¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by S.Vanmathi, wife of late Senthilkumar, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the District Collector, Krishnagiri (3rd respondent) to grant the service benefits and pension of her deceased husband by considering her representation dated 28.02.2026. Senthilkumar was appointed Office Assistant on 29.05.1992 by the 3rd respondent and worked in the office of the Assistant Director (Audit), Panchayat Development Department, Krishnagiri; his services were regularized on 28.05.1993. After illness-related suspension under Section 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, he died on 08.06.2021 survived by his wife, daughters, son and mother. Unreplied representations dated 23.07.2021 and 28.02.2026 followed; a reply dated 16.03.2026 from the 4th respondent's office stated the request was accepted and orders would pass, but no action ensued. The Court recorded that the husband had been dismissed from service in 2019 under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, that he never challenged the dismissal nor claimed pension in his lifetime, and held that one dismissed from service is not entitled to pension; the relief claimed therefore could not be granted. Writ petition dismissed. No costs.

¶1

WP No. 18817 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

WP No. 18817 of 2026

S.Vanmathi

..Petitioner(s)

The Secretary to Government Rural Development and Panchayatraj Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009

¶11

The Director of Rural Development and Panchayatraj Department, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015

¶12

The District Collector Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶13

The Assistant Director (Audit) Panchayat Development Department, Krishnagiri District.

¶14

..Respondent(s)

¶15

Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to grant service benefits and pension of the petitioner’s deceased husband Senthilkumar to the petitioner by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 28.02.2026.

¶16

For Petitioner(s): Mr. R.Naresh Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr. K.Sathish Government Advocate

¶17

Page1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

WP No. 18817 of 2026

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

¶22

“To direct the 3rd respondent to grant service benefits and

¶23

pension of the petitioner’s deceased husband Senthilkumar to the petitioner by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 28.02.2026.”

¶24

The petitioner’s husband Senthil Kumar was appointed as Office Assistant on 29.05.1992, by the 3^rd respondent and was working in the office of the 4^th respondent. His services were regularized on 28.05.1993.

¶25

It is submitted that due to illness of the petitioner’s husband, he was unable to attend his duty and hence he was suspended under Section 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Subsequently the petitioner’s husband passed away on 08.06.2021, leaving behind him his wife, daughters, S.Shnmuga Priya and S.Charultha, son S.Hariprasanna and mother Mrs.Prema as his surviving legal heirs.

¶26

The petitioner would submit that after the demise of her husband, the petitioner was put to much difficulties to run the family. It is submitted that after the demise of her husband, the petitioner sent a detailed representation

¶27

Page2 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

WP No. 18817 of 2026

¶30

dated 23.07.2021 to the 4^th respondent requesting them to grant service benefits of her deceased husband Senthil Kumar and pension to the petitioner but no reply was received from the 4^th respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a

¶31

detailed representation to the 3^rd respondent requesting them to grant service benefits of her deceased husband and pension. The said letter was received by the 3^rd respondent however, the petitioner has not received any service benefits and pension from the Government. The petitioner would submit that a reply from office of the 4^th respondent dated 16.03.2026 was received by her wherein it is stated that her request was accepted and orders would be passed to this effect. However, no action was taken in this regard. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶32

Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the records.

¶33

The petitioner’s husband Senthil Kumar had been regularised into service of the 4^th respondent on 28.05.1993. The said Senthil Kumar had died on 08.06.2021, leaving behind him his wife, daughters and son and the mother of the deceased. However, he was dismissed from service in the year 2019 under the provisions of Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner’s husband has not challenged this dismissal till his death. He has also not claimed pension during his lifetime. The petitioner’s husband having been dismissed from service is not entitled to

¶34

Page3 of 6

¶35

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

¶36

WP No. 18817 of 2026

¶37

pension and consequently the relief claimed cannot be granted.

¶38