1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02/08/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD) No.8528 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 Avoodythai ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman, V.O.C. Port Trust Cargo, Handling Labour Pool, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District. 2.Palaniyammal ... Respondents Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Letter No.VOCPTCHLP/LEGAL/GEN/20/192/2011/D-616 dated 23.06.2011, quash the same as illegal and violation of principles of law and further directed the 1st respondent to pay the terminal benefits of deceased Mareswaran to the petitioner within a stipulated time. For petitioner .. Mr.G.Marimuthu For respondents .. No appearance ORDER The petitioner has challenged the order, dated 23.06.2011, of the Chairman, V.O.C. Port Trust Cargo Handling Labour Pool, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District, by which, she has been directed to obtain suitable orders from the Court to establish her claim for terminal benefits of the deceased Mareswaran. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that she is the legally wedded wife of one Mareswaran and that the marriage between them was solemnized on 01.07.1984 in Sree Valasubramaniasamy Temple, Virudhunagar Hindu Nadar Devasthanam, Virudhunagar Town and out of the wedlock, three children viz., Muthukumaravel, Sethuraja and Balakrishnan, were born. According to the petitioner, her husband deceased Mareswaran, was working as Mazdoor in the first respondent Port Trust and died on 01.02.2008. It is her further contention that the petitioner and her three sons are the only legal heirs of the deceased Mareswaran. That be so, one Mrs.Palaniammal, the second respondent herein, has filed a Succession Original Petition before the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, claiming that she is the wife of the deceased Mareswaran and entitled to receive the terminal benefits. Though all the three sons of the petitioner were impleaded, as party respondents in the Succession Original Petition, without impleading the petitioner as respondent in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Succession Original Petition, the said Mrs.Palaniammal and the petitioner's three sons have entered into a compromise and shared the terminal benefits. Accepting the said compromise, by order dated 12.08.2010, the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, has passed a decree in favour of Mrs.Palaniammal, the second respondent herein and others. 3.The petitioner has contended that the decree passed by the said Court is not binding on the petitioner, as she is not a party. It is the further contention of the petitioner that only after coming to know about the decree passed in the Succession Original Petition, she made representations dated 25.08.2010 and 30.03.2011 respectively, requesting the first respondent to disburse the terminal benefits to her. Though a representation, dated 19.04.2011, was also sent to the Hon'ble Chief Minister Cell, the first respondent has failed to disburse the terminal benefits due and payable to her and instead, has directed the petitioner to approach the Court to obtain necessary orders. It is, in these circumstances, the petitioner has come forward to challenge the letter, dated 23.06.2011, and sought for further reliefs, as stated supra. 4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 5.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was totally unaware of the proceedings, Succession Original Petition No.121 of 2009 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin and further contended that though all the three sons were parties to the above said Original Petition, they stayed in different places and in such circumstances, the petitioner, was kept in dark, perusal of the ration card issued by the Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department for the years 2005-2009 and exhibited by the petitioner in the typed set of papers, shows that the petitioner is residing at North street, Thathampatti, Virudhunagar Taluk and District. In the ration card, the names of all the three sons viz., Muthukumaravel, Sethuraja and Balakrishnan, are mentioned and stated to be residing in Thathampatti village, Virudhunagar Taluk and District, i.e., in the same place where the petitioner is living. Perusal of the order made in Succession Original Petition No.121 of 2009, dated 12.08.2010, filed before the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, in the matter of grant of Succession Certificate, in respect of late Mareswaran S/o.Sethupillai, shows that all the three sons are residing at Door No.2/148, South Street, Periya Thathampatti Village, Meesalur Post, Virudhunagar District. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner and her three sons, all unmarried, are residing in the same village. The contention that all the unmarried sons are living separately leaving the mother alone is unbelievable. Though the sons of the petitioner were impleaded, as party respondents in that Succession Original Petition, the contention of the petitioner at para No.4 of the supporting affidavit is that purposefully her sons are failed to inform about filing of the Succession Original Petition by Mrs.Palaniammal, the second respondent herein. 6.The oral submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's sons were residing elsewhere and therefore, she was kept in dark, is without any pleading, but, on the contrary, it is evident from the ration card, as well as the address shown in the Succession Original petition that her sons were residing in the same https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 village. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that she did not have any knowledge about filing of the Succession Original Petition before the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, cannot be countenanced. Perusal of the Succession Original Petition also shows that the death benefit and family pension of the deceased Mareswaran, Mazdoor, to be paid by the Tuticorin Port Trust Handling Labour Pool, Tuticorin, has been worked out to Rs.1,40,000/- and a compromise memo has been filed by the parties. Based on the compromise, a certificate has been issued directing the Deputy Traffic Manager, Tuticorin Port Trust Handling Labour Pool, Tuticorin, the fourth respondent herein, to pay Rs.20,000/- to Mrs.Palaniammal out of the family pension for the period of from 01.02.2008 to 30.06.2009 (17 months) and that remaining amount has been directed to be paid to the respondents 1 to 3 (Muthukumaravel, Sethuraja and Balakrishnan), sons of the petitioner herein. A further direction has also been issued to the fourth respondent to pay family pension of the deceased Mareswaran to Mrs.Palaniammal from the period of July 2009 onwards and all other death benefits of the deceased Mareswaran to the sons of the writ petitioner. 7.Thus it is evident that in the Succession Original petition, except a direction to pay family pension to the second respondent herein for the period from July 2009 onwards and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards family pension for the period from 01.02.2008 to 30.06.2009, rest of the death cum retirements benefits have been directed to be paid to the sons of the writ petitioner. All that has been directed to be paid to Mrs.Palaniammal is only family pension and nothing more. 8.In view of the above, the contention that the petitioner was kept in dark about filing of the Succession Original Petition and orders passed thereon, is not acceptable for the reasons that the material documents produced by the petitioner shows that all her sons are residing in the same village. There is no manifest impunity or illegality in the impugned letter, warranting any interference. Hence the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (W) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Chairman, VOC Port Trust Cargo, Handling Labour Pool, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District +1cc to Mr.G.Marimuthu, Advocate, SR.No.25679 gcg : : GH : 05.08.2011 : 3p/3c W.P.(MD) No.8528 of 2011 02.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/