High Court cannot order salary deductions for maintenance without competent court adjudication.

The petitioner, S. Malar, was the mother of late S. Manikandan, an Office Assistant under the Principal Judge, Labour Court, Chennai, who died in harness on 12 January 2020.

The fourth respondent, Revathy, was the deceased employee’s wife and the petitioner’s daughter-in-law. The petitioner asserted that she had given an undertaking/no-objection for the fourth respondent’s compassionate appointment on the condition that the fourth respondent maintain her. Although the fourth respondent obtained compassionate appointment and was working in the Judicial Department, the petitioner alleged that she was not being maintained.

She therefore sought directions for payment of the deceased employee’s death and terminal benefits entirely to her and for deduction of 50% of the fourth respondent’s salary towards her maintenance.

The respondents contended that the petitioner’s no-objection was not required under the compassionate appointment scheme and that the appointment was granted pursuant to an order of the High Court.

Whether the petitioner could obtain a writ directing the respondents to disburse the deceased employee’s death and terminal benefits entirely in her favour, contrary to the applicable nomination and pension rules.

Whether the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, could direct deduction of 50% of the fourth respondent’s salary for the petitioner’s maintenance based on the allegation that the daughter-in-law had failed to maintain her.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India and held that disputed questions of fact, including alleged non-maintenance of a mother-in-law by her daughter-in-law, cannot ordinarily be adjudicated in writ proceedings and must be established before a competent forum through evidence.

It applied the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, under which terminal and pensionary benefits, including Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity and Provident Fund amounts, are to be settled in accordance with the deceased Government servant’s valid nomination.

The Court further held that an employer has no authority to divert or settle such benefits contrary to the nomination in the absence of an order from a competent court, and cannot deduct 50% of an employee’s salary for maintenance without such judicial authority.

The Court found that the petitioner’s claim was founded on the disputed assertion that the fourth respondent had breached an undertaking to maintain her. Determining whether such an undertaking existed, its legal enforceability, and whether the fourth respondent had in fact failed to maintain the petitioner would require examination of evidence, which was beyond the proper scope of the writ jurisdiction.

With respect to the terminal benefits, the Court held that the respondents were required to act in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and the nomination made by the deceased employee; they could not independently redirect the benefits to the petitioner. Similarly, the employer lacked power to impose a salary deduction in the absence of an order from a competent court.

The petitioner was granted liberty to redress her grievance in accordance with law before the competent forum. No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.