Nallammal v. The Managing Director

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE Nallammal ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), 4th Floor CMDA Tower-2, Egmore, Chennai.

2.The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), Plot No.100, Anna Nagar, Madurai-625 020.

3.The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), IMFS Depot, Karuvelnaikenpatti, Theni-625 531 4.Adhlakshmi 5.Aravind 6.K.Kavitha Rani ... Respondents (Respondent No.6 is impleaded vide Court order dated 18.06.2025 in W.M.P. (MD.No.8911 of 2024 in W.P.(MD).No.10172 of 2022) 1/5

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents Nos.1 to 3 to disburse the death-cum-terminal benefits and pensionary benefits of the petitioner's son namely late Baskaran, who was worked as District Manager TASMAC, Theni, to the Petitioner on the basis of the Petitioner's representation dated 10.05.2022 within a time frame to be stipulated by Court. For Petitioner : Ms.K.Asha For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.S.Sivanesan, Standing Counsel For R-4 & R-5 : Mr.V.Jawahar Srinivasan For R-6 : Ms.Sherlin Sheeba

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus seeking for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to disburse the death-cum-terminal benefits and pensionary benefits of the petitioner's son, namely, late Baskaran, who was worked as District Manager, TASMAC, Theni, to the Petitioner, based on the Petitioner's representation dated 10.05.2022, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2/5

2. The petitioner claims that the fourth respondent is the first wife of late Baskaran, who worked as District Manager, TASMAC, Theni and the sixth respondent is his second wife. However, the petitioner contends that the sixth respondent is not entitled for death-cum-terminal benefits and pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner's son, late Baskaran. The fifth respondent is the son of the fourth respondent.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that she has no objection for granting 1/3rd share out of the terminal benefits and pensionary benefits to the fourth respondent, the fifth respondent and the sixth respondent's son. However, the petitioner is not willing to give any share out of the death-cum-terminal benefits and pensionary benefits payable to the deceased Baskaran to the sixth respondent, since, according to the petitioner, the sixth respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased Baskaran.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent would submit that the petitioner's son Baskaran, had divorced his first wife, namely, the fourth respondent, based on customary rights, which contention is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Therefore, she would submit that 3/5

the sixth respondent is also entitled for a share from and out of the death-cum terminal benefits and pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner's son, late Baskaran.

5. The parties have tried to arrive at an amicable settlement and several opportunities were granted to them by this Court for arriving at an amicable settlement. But, despite the same, they have failed to enter into an amicable settlement.

6. Since there are disputed questions of fact involved, as seen from the above observations, necessarily, only a Civil Court can adjudicate the same.

7. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the respective parties to agitate their respective rights before the Civil Court with regard to the disbursement of the death-cum-terminal benefits and pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner's son, late Baskaran, by the official respondents (TASMAC). No costs.

13.10.2025 NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no TSG 4/5

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J TSG 13.10.2025 5/5