RAMAYEE @ RAMAL vs THE DIRECTOR
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP No. 10811 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.P.No.10811 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA010573942024}
and
W.M.P.No.34883 of 2024
Ramayee @ Ramal
W/o.Nachi (late),
Maduraiveeran Koil Street,
Muthur Post, Tiruppur District - 638 105.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Director
Directorate of Town Panchayat,
th th
7 and 8 Floor, Administrative Campus,
Chennai - 600 028.
2. The Director
Local Fund Audit,
No. 571, Officers Building,
Veterinary Hospital Campus,
Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.
3. The District Collector
Tiruppur Collector Office,
Tiruppur.
4. The Assistant Director
Town Panchayat, Collector Office Campus,
Erode.
5. The Executive Officer
Muthur Town Panchayat,
Muthur, Kangeyam Taluk,
Tiruppur District - 638 105.
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:17:17 pm )
WP No. 10811 of 2024
Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
nd
India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2 respondent
to conduct an enquiry to disburse the family pension pertaining to the
th
petitioner’s deceased husband working at 5 respondent office as sanitary
worker based on petitioner’s representation dated 04.04.2022.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.Mariappan
For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Thamizhanban
Government Advocate for R1 to R4
Mr.C.Jayaprakash
Standing Counsel for R5
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed seeking to consider the representation of
the petitioner dated 04.04.2022.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government
Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the fifth respondent.
3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she was the first wife of the
deceased Nachi and that out of their wedlock, they have got two children.
However, the respondents have neither paid family pension nor settled the
terminal benefits to the petitioner. On the other hand, one Mohanambal, who is
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:17:17 pm )
WP No. 10811 of 2024
allegedly the daughter of the petitioner's husband through one Palanimammal,
has been granted such benefits.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the very
conduct of the respondents in denying family pension to the petitioner is in
contravention of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, and hence, prays for a direction
to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner.
5. At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fifth
respondent would contend that initially, the petitioner's husband, who was
employed as a Sanitary Worker, had nominated the petitioner as his nominee.
However, on 20.03.2001, he submitted a request to cancel the previous
nomination and to include one Mohanambal as his only heir and nominee to
receive the Death-cum-Retirement Benefits. Subsequently, he was
superannuated on 30.06.2005. At the time of superannuation, he submitted a
photograph taken with Palaniammal and declared her as his wife and
Mohanambal as his daughter under the column of Family members. Based on
such declaration, a pension proposal was submitted to the authorities concerned,
and a monthly pension of Rs.1,716/- was sanctioned to Nachi. After his demise,
family pension was sanctioned to Palaniammal, who subsequently passed away.
Therefore, it is the contention of the fifth respondent that if at all the petitioner
has got any grievance, she must approach the Civil Court.
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:17:17 pm )
WP No. 10811 of 2024
6. In addition to the above contention, the learned Government Advocate
appearing for respondents 1 to 4 would contend that they have settled the family
pension strictly in accordance with the pension proposal sanctioned by the
authorities concerned, and that they have no role in deciding the persons who
are entitled to receive the pension. Hence, prays for dismissal of the writ
petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on
either side and perused the material available on record.
8. It is the specific submission of the petitioner that she is the legally
wedded wife of the deceased Nachi and that her marriage was never dissolved
by divorce. To substantiate the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the order passed by the learned District Munsif at Kangeyam in
O.S.No.249 of 1999, dated 19.10.2001, wherein the deceased Nachi was
directed to pay a sum of Rs.770/- as monthly maintenance from October 2000 to
the petitioner. Therefore, as rightly contended by the petitioner’s counsel, the
fifth respondent cannot dispute the status of the petitioner as the legally wedded
wife of the deceased Nachi. However, it is their case that Nachi subsequently
submitted another application along with photograph taken with Palaniammal,
representing her as his wife. When such a request was made, the authorities
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:17:17 pm )
WP No. 10811 of 2024
concerned had a duty to ascertain whether the marriage between the petitioner
and the deceased Nachi had been dissolved or not.
9. In the case in hand, admittedly, such an exercise was not done by the
authorities concerned, which reflects a blatant violation of the Rules and a
callous attitude on the part of the respondents. The callous attitude of certain
staff members working under the fifth respondent cannot defeat the statutory
rights of the petitioner, who is the legally wedded wife. It is also relevant to
note that whenever a request is made for nomination, according to the Pension
Rules, such nomination must be in favour of a family member. In the case in
hand, since the first marriage between the deceased Nachi and the petitioner still
subsisted, the subsequent marriage with Palaniammal was void ab initio. Hence,
the said Palaniammal cannot be construed as a family member under the
Pension Rules.
10. In such view of the above factual position, this Court is of the firm
view that the petitioner is entitled to have family pension. While considering the
representation, it is noted that she has also claimed terminal benefits of her
husband. However, in the nomination form, one Mohanambal, the daughter of
the deceased through her second wife, Palaniammal, was named as the nominee.
Accordingly, the terminal benefits amounting to Rs.86,181/- have already been
settled as Death-cum-Retirement benefits to Mohanambal.
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:17:17 pm )
WP No. 10811 of 2024
11. In such view of the above position, this Court is of the firm view that,
if at all the petitioner has got any grievance, she may approach the appropriate
Civil Court against Mohanambal for payment of terminal benefits in accordance
with law. However, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to family
pension. Taking into consideration of the peculiar circumstances of this case,
such family pension is directed to pay to the petitioner from the date of death of
one Palaniammal [alleged second wife]. In view of the same, the fifth
respondent is directed to send a proposal to the authorities concerned for
th
sanction of family pension to the petitioner. On receipt of proposal, the 5
respondent is directed to sanction pension along with arrears as indicated above.
The aforesaid exercise is directed to be completed within a period of twelve(12)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. With the above directions, this Writ Petition Stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
26-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
ms
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:17:17 pm )
WP No. 10811 of 2024
To
1. The Director
Directorate of Town Panchayat,
th th
7 and 8 Floor, Administrative Campus,
Chennai - 600 028.
2. The Director
Local Fund Audit,
No. 571, Officers Building,
Veterinary Hospital Campus,
Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.
3. The District Collector
Tiruppur Collector Office,Tiruppur.
4. The Assistant Director
Town Panchayat,
Collector Office Campus,
Erode.
5. The Executive Officer
Muthur Town Panchayat,
Muthur, Kangeyam Taluk,
Tiruppur District - 638 105.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:17:17 pm )
WP No. 10811 of 2024
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
ms
W.P.No.10811 of 2024
and
W.M.P.No.34883 of 2024
26-10-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:17:17 pm )