S.MALAR vs The Registrar General,
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP No. 35302 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
WP No. 35302 of 2026 AND
WMP NO. 39227 OF 2026
S.Malar
W/o. Shri Sivalingam,
C88, TNHB Quarters,
Ambathur Industrial Estate
Anna Nagar west, Chennai 40
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The Registrar General,
Madras High Court, Chennai 104.
2. The Principal Judge
Labour Court, Chennai 104
3. The Chief Administrative office
Principal Labour court, Chennai
4. Revathy, Office Assistant,
Labour court, Chennai 104
..Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the
respondents 1 to 3 to disburse death benefits/ terminal benefits due on the
death of petitioner’s son S.Manikandan entirely to the petitioner and further
direct the respondents 1 to 3 to deduct 50 percent of the gross pay from the
salary of the 4th respondent to be credited directly to the savings bank
__________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/09/2026 11:40:44 am )
WP No. 35302 of 2026
account of the petitioner bearing No. 43639144461 State Bank of India, Anna
Nagar West Extension Branch towards her maintenance which shall continue
till her lifetime .
For Petitioner : Ms.M.N.Sumathy
For Respondents : Ms.B.Poongkhulali For RR 1 To 3
Order
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
Writ of Mandamus has been instituted seeking a direction to the
respondents 1 to 3 to disburse death benefits/ terminal benefits due on the
death of petitioner’s son S.Manikandan entirely to the petitioner and further
direct the respondents 1 to 3 to deduct 50 percent of the gross pay from the
salary of the 4th respondent to be credited directly to the savings bank
account of the petitioner bearing No.43639144461 State Bank of India, Anna
Nagar West Extension Branch towards her maintenance which shall continue
till her lifetime .
2. The petitioner is the mother of Late S.Manikandan, who served as
Office Assistant under the control of the Principal Judge, Labour Court,
Chennai and died in harness on 12.01.2020, while in service. The fourth
respondent is the daughter-in-law of the writ petition and the wife of the
deceased employee Late S.Manikandan.
__________
Page 2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/09/2026 11:40:44 am )
WP No. 35302 of 2026
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the writ petitioner
has given an undertaking / No-Objection for providing compassionate
appointment to the fourth respondent with a condition that the fourth
respondent should maintain the writ petitioner. Pursuant to the undertaking,
appointment on compassionate ground was granted to the fourth respondent
and she is working in Judicial Department. However, the writ petitioner states
that the fourth respondent has failed to honour her commitment and not
maintaining her. Thus, she has chosen to file the present writ petition seeking
settlement of terminal benefits due to her deceased son as well as to deduct
50% of the gross pay from the salary of the fourth respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents would oppose by stating that
the compassionate appointment was not given merely based on the No-
Objection given by the writ petitioner /mother-in-law, the fourth respondent
secured an order from the High Court and in pursuance to the order,
appointment on compassionate ground was issued. That apart, under the
scheme of compassionate appointment, No-Objection from the mother-in-law
of the fourth respondent is not at all required. Therefore, the very contention
of the writ petitioner ie., non-maintenance of the writ petitioner by the fourth
respondent after giving an undertaking is untenable.
__________
Page 3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/09/2026 11:40:44 am )
WP No. 35302 of 2026
5. The claim of the writ petitioner whether entertainable or not in the
context of the Service Rules and Pension Rules are to be examined to
ascertain the right of the petitioner to secure the relief in the present writ
petition.
6. In respect of the terminal benefits due to the deceased employee
Manikandan, it is to be disbursed including Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity,
Provident Fund etc., are to be settled in favour of the nominee as per the
nomination given by the Government servants. As far as the deduction of
50% of the salary paid to the 4th respondent who is working in the Judicial
Department is concerned, the same cannot be done by the employer in the
absence of any order from the competent court of law. Non-maintenance of
mother-in-law by the daughter-in-law is a disputed fact, which is to be
adjudicated before the competent forum. High Court cannot adjudicate the
disputed issues of this nature in a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The disputed fact of non-maintenance of the mother-in-
law by the daughter-in-law is to established based on the evidence, which is to
be done in the manner known to law.
7. Regarding the terminal and pensionary benefits, it is to be disbursed
in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and only in the event
__________
Page 4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/09/2026 11:40:44 am )
WP No. 35302 of 2026
of securing court order from the competent court of law, the employer will be
in a position to act based on the order, if any. The employer themselves have
no powers under the Pension Rules to settle the terminal benefits contrary to
the nomination given by the deceased employee.
8. At the outset, non-maintenance of mother-in-law by the daughter-in-
law is the disputed fact, which is to be resolved in the manner known to law
before the competent forum. However, in the present writ petition the High
Court cannot adjudicate such issues and grant the relief as such sought for by
the writ petitioner. Granting liberty to the petitioner to redress her grievance
in accordance with law, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.)
02-09-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
KST
To
1. The Registrar General,Madras High Court, Chennai 104.
2. The Principal Judge, Labour court, Chennai 104
3. The Chief Administrative officer Principal Labour court,
Chennai
__________
Page 5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/09/2026 11:40:44 am )
WP No. 35302 of 2026
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.
AND
KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN J.
KST
WP No. 35302 of 2026
AND
WMP NO. 39227 OF 2026
02-09-2026
__________
Page 6 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/09/2026 11:40:44 am )