Madras HC Directs Equal One-Third Shares Of Deceased NLC Employee’s Benefits For His Widow And Two Children, With Brother’s Share Deposited

The petitioner’s father, J.J. Joshi, an employee of NLC India Ltd., died in service on 28 April 2022.

The petitioner and her brother, J. Jude Jackson, were his children by his first wife; the sixth respondent was his wife after the first wife’s death.

The petitioner sought disbursement of two-thirds of the deceased’s terminal benefits to herself and her brother, asserting that the sixth respondent was entitled to the remaining one-third. She had been appointed guardian of her brother by the Family Court, Cuddalore, in G.W.O.P. No. 164 of 2022.

The sixth respondent disputed the petitioner’s claim, alleging that she had withdrawn money from the deceased’s bank account and taken family jewels, and contended that the dispute required a civil suit.

The High Court suo motu impleaded the brother as the seventh respondent.

The judgment identifies no specific statute or precedent as the basis for its decision.

It applies the principle that a disputed factual or equitable claim—such as whether one claimant took assets that should be accounted for against terminal benefits—should not be adjudicated in writ proceedings and may instead be pursued in a civil suit.

On the admitted facts, the Court treated the petitioner, her brother, and the sixth respondent as each entitled to one-third of the terminal benefits.

The Court found that the parties’ relationships and their entitlement to shares in the terminal benefits were not disputed.

The sixth respondent’s allegation concerning the bank withdrawal and jewels was contested, so the Court declined to determine whether those alleged acts justified an adjustment against the petitioner’s share; it left that issue for a civil suit.

It accordingly directed equal one-third shares, with the petitioner’s brother’s share protected by deposit in an interest-bearing account, while permitting the petitioner, as his guardian, to withdraw the interest quarterly for his maintenance and welfare.

The sixth respondent was left at liberty to bring an appropriate civil suit concerning her equity-related and other claims; there was no order as to costs.