P.Banumathi v. The Superintendent Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN P.Banumathi ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai Thiruvannamalai District.

2.The Assistant Treasury Officer Sub Treasury Officer Cheyyar Thiruvannamalai District ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent to issue Pension benefits of his busband in favour of Petitioner Name as a Nominee based on the changes made by his husband in his service record book and the documents already submitted by the petitioner before the 1st Respondent. 1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Umapathy For Respondents : Mr.G.Nanmaran Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

By consent of both the learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal, at the admission stage itself.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer for issuing a Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent to issue Pension benefits of her husband to her as a Nominee based on the changes made by her husband in his service record book and the documents already submitted by the petitioner before the 1st Respondent.

3. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2/6

petitioner is the second wife of late N.Padmanaban, who was working as SubInspector of Police in the 1st Respondent/Department and he got retired from service on 31.08.1995. It is the case of the petitioner that during the life time of N.Padmanaban, he has nominated the petitioner as his second wife and he also made change in the service records. However, when the petitioner sent a representation on 29.11.2023 claiming family pension, the same was returned calling for further details.

5. At this juncture, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that no rejection order has been passed, the Authority wants only the further records from the petitioner, unless the records are received, they are not in a position to finalise the issue.

6. The very Letter dated 12.12.2023 issued by the 1st respondent has not been rejected. On the other hand, it only sought certain documents from the petitioner. While reading the above letter, this Court does not find any infirmity. Hence, this Court does not find any merits in the writ petition.

7. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner 3/6

is directed to submit the documents mentioned in the Letter dated 12.12.2023 issued by the 1st respondent, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.

15.07.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking order /Non Speaking Order dm 4/6

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai Thiruvannamalai District.

2.The Assistant Treasury Officer Sub Treasury Officer Cheyyar Thiruvannamalai District 5/6

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

dm 15.07.2025 6/6