O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.01.2019, passed by the second respondent and the consequential order dated 09.04.2019, passed by the very same respondent, rejecting the petitioner’s request for payment of retirement benefits payable to the deceased mother of the petitioner, by name, R.Panimayam, who was employed with the respondents.

2. Under the impugned orders, the aforesaid request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there is one more legal heir for the deceased employee, R.Panimayam, namely, her husband, A.Rajappa Nadar, who is alive. However, according to the petitioner, she being the only nominee declared by her deceased mother, R.Panimayam, while she was in service prior to her death, she alone is entitled for the payment of the retirement benefits payable to the deceased mother of the petitioner, R.Panimayam (employee).

3. The petitioner has already received 50% of the retirement benefits of her deceased mother, as the petitioner is the daughter of the deceased employee (R.Panimayam). In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking for payment of the balance 50% of the retirement benefits payable on account of her deceased mother (R.Panimayam), as the petitioner is the only nominee declared by the deceased employee, R.Panimayam to receive the retirement benefits. The petitioner also contends that there is no necessity for her to obtain a Succession Certificate from the competent Court as per the impugned order, in view of the fact that she is the only nominee declared by the deceased employee, R.Panimayam to receive the retirement benefits subsequent to the death of R.Panimayam.

4. The respondents have also filed their counter-affidavit in this Writ Petition admitting the fact that the last nomination letter given by the deceased employee, R.Panimayam, while she was in service declares that the petitioner is her only nominee, who is entitled to get her retirement benefits subsequent to her death. However, in the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that prior to the last nomination letter given by the deceased employee, R.Panimayam, had already given a nomination letter to the respondents stating that the petitioner and the husband of the deceased employee, viz., A.Rajappa Nadar, are the nominees of the deceased employee, who are entitled to receive the retirement benefits, incase she dies and only due to the said reason, the petitioner was directed to approach the competent Court and obtain a Succession Certificate under the impugned order.

5. It is also represented by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that during the pendency of this Writ Petition, the representations dated 28.11.2023 and 10.05.2024 have been received by the respondents from one Mr.N.Anthonyraj, who claims to be the father of the petitioner claiming the retirement benefits payable on account of the death of the deceased employee, R.Panimayam. Therefore, he would submit that unless and until the competent Court issues a Succession Certificate in favour of the petitioner enabling her to get the balance 50% retirement benefits payable on account of the death of the deceased employee, R.Panimayam, the relief sought for by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is not maintainable.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner has been declared as the only nominee by the deceased employee, R.Panimayam through her nomination letter dated 18.08.2015. The receipt of the said letter is also not disputed by the respondents. Once a nomination letter has been issued prior to the death of the employee, R.Panimayam, the said nomination letter will have to be necessarily acted upon by the respondents, as the earlier nomination letters, if at all issued by the very same employee, R.Panimayam gets substituted by the last nomination letter, which is in favour of the petitioner.

7. The object of the nomination letter is to enable the respondents to pay all monetary benefits, which includes the retire