Rajalakshmi v. The Managing Director

O R D E R Mr.P.F.Ferlin Castro, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for the respondent – Transport Corporation.

¶2With the consent of both sides, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

¶3Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent – Transport Corporation.

¶4The petitioner herein is the wife of one S.Magesh, who worked as a Mechanic in the respondent – Transport Corporation with employee Code No.45085. The said employee passed away on 04.05.2026. Consequent upon the death of the said employee, his wife (petitioner herein), mother and son made a claim before the respondent – Transport Corporation for payment of the terminal benefits and family pension etc. The said benefits are not being paid to them by respondent – Transport Corporation, on the ground that the name of the mother and son of the deceased employee as mentioned in the Service Register and the legal heirship certificate of the deceased employee are slightly different and for that reason, the terminal benefits are not being released.

¶5Mr.P.F.Ferlin Castro, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent – Transport Corporation also submitted that there is no dispute about the identify of the mother and son of the deceased employee and further submitted that the petitioner herein, being the wife of the deceased employee, also admitted about the identity of the mother and son of the deceased employee. However, it is only because of the discrepancy in the spelling of the name of the mother and son of the deceased employee, the respondent – Transport Corporation is not in a position to release the terminal benefits and requiring the petitioner herein to obtain a legal heirship certificate and other identify proofs in the names as mentioned in the Service Register of her deceased husband.

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that there is no dispute about the identify of the mother and son of the deceased employee and the same is also being admitted by the petitioner herein, who is the wife of the deceased employee, this Court does not see any justification on the part of the respondent – Transport Corporation in withholding the terminal benefits of the deceased employee solely on the ground that there is a slight discrepancy in the name of the mother and son of the deceased employee.

¶7In the circumstances, the impugned proceedings dated

09.06.2026, issued by the second respondent, is hereby quashed and this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the terminal benefits of the deceased employee to his wife (petitioner herein), mother and son in accordance with the applicable rules, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

29.06.2026 NCC : Index : Internet :

krk MUMMINENI-SUDHEER-KUMAR,-J. krk W.P.(MD)-No.18106-of-2026

29.06.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.06.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR Rajalakshmi ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited Madurai-625 016 2.The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited Dindigul Division, Dindigul ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order bearing No.Parvai:CES/DGL/RO/E5/348, dated 09.06.2026, on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to disburse the terminal benefits and pensionary benefits of the petitioner's husband S.Magesh, Employee Code No. 45085 to the petitioner with arrears along with interest and time as fixed by this Court from 04.05.2026. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Shankar Ganesh For Respondents : Mr.P.F.Ferlin Castro Standing Counsel