COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by P.B.BALAJI,J.)

W.A.No.3824 of 2019 The wife of deceased railway employee, aggrieved by the order of Writ Court in W.P.No.13825 of 2019 dated 01.10.2019 is the appellant before us.

2. The mother of the deceased railway employee, as writ petitioner, sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings dated 10.11.2015 on file of the first respondent, Tahsildar, Paruthipattu Village Tiruvallur District. The case of the writ petitioner is that her son was employed in the railways and he died in harness. The petitioner suspected the death to be unnatural and according to the petitioner, her daughter-in- law murdered her son and therefore the terminal benefits payable by the department ought not to be given to the wife of the deceased railway employee. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that criminal proceedings were pending at her instance in M.P.No.1232 of 2018 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, challenging the closure report of CBCID dated 25.04.2018. According to the writ petitioner, the 4th respondent, namely, her daughter-in-law was disentitled to receive the terminal benefits. The further allegation of the petitioner is that a fabricated legal heirship certificate was produced by the 4th respondent suppressing a class II legal heir, namely, one Mr.Sunil Franklin who is the brother of the deceased Dr.Anil Lionel and has survived him. The writ petition challenges the order issuing the legal heirship certificate.

3. Before the Writ Court, the 4th respondent, wife of the deceased railway employee filed a counter denying the claims and allegations of the writ petitioner. The 4th respondent denied the allegation that she had murdered her husband and even according to the investigation it was concluded that her husband committed suicide by inflicting self-injury using a kitchen knife that was used for cutting vegetables. The 4th respondent has further stated that even the CBCID, Chennai investigated the matter and closed the case, dropping further action. According to the 4th respondent, she was the only person eligible to avail all terminal benefits. In so far as the legal heirship certificate, the 4th respondent had applied to the Tahsildar, Paruthipattu Village, Poonamalle as the 4th respondent was residing at Avadi with her relatives after the demise of her husband and therefore there was no fabrication or forgery as alleged by the petitioner. Infact, according to the 4th respondent, the legal heirship certificate contains not only her name but also the petitioner’s name, being the mother of the deceased railway employee.

4. The Writ Court, after hearing the parties found that there was some foul play in issuance of the legal heirship certificate and directed the jurisdictional police officer to enquire into the matter and take appropriate action against the erring persons involved in the offence of creating false documents, by adopting the due process of law. In so far as the terminal benefits, the Writ Court directed the petitioner and the 4th respondent to agitate their respective claims and contentions in the pending OA.No.185 of 2019 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench.

5. Aggrieved by the said order of the Writ Court, the 4th respondent in the writ petition i.e. the wife of the deceased railway employee, along with her parents who were cited as respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition, have preferred the present writ appeal on the grounds that the Writ Court failed to see that an appeal was provided against an order of the Tahsildar issuing legal heirship certificate, before the Revenue Divisional Officer and a further revision also lies to the District Collector. According to the appellants, the writ petition is therefore not maintainable in view of the alternate remedy available to the writ petitioner. It is also contended by the appellants that the brother of the 1st appellant’s husband is not a legal