O R D E R

The petitioner's son P.Jeyendran joined the first respondent Corporation as salesman vide an appointment order, dated 29.11.2003. The deceased has executed a Nomination Form, nominating the petitioner and his wife. The petitioner's deceased son married one Shakthi Anushiya on 27.03.2005. After the marriage, unfortunately the petitioner's son died on 28.07.2005. After the petitioner's son death, the daughter-in-law snapped her relationship through customary method on 17.10.2005. Thereafter, the said Sakthi Anushiya remarried one R.Arivalagan on 07.09.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Succession O.P.No.1 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif, Nilakkottai and obtain the order of Succession Certificate on 23.09.2008. The petitioner being the father of the deceased Jeyendran, applied for the death benefits and the Provident Fund benefits before the first and second respondents. The second respondent rejected the claim stating that the daughter-in-law alive and directed the petitioner to produce the Form 20 and Form-10 D once again in respect of the daughter-in-law namely, Sakthi Anushiya. Aggrieved over the order passed by the second respondent, the present Writ Petition is filed to quash the order and to direct the second respondent to disburse the death benefits and other benefits.

2.The first respondent has filed a counter stating that all the papers have been forwarded to the second respondent. The second respondent has filed a detailed counter stating that the Succession O.P has been filed only to claim the deposit amount of Rs.15,000/-(RUPEES FIFTEEN THOUSAND only) from the first respondent and it is not filed to claiming any pensionary benefits or the Provident Fund benefits and therefore the same is rejected. The second respondent has also stated that the petitioner and his wife has submitted Form 20(Employee's Provident Funds) and Form10D(Pension) and the same was returned stating that the application ought to be signed by the daughter-in-law also. The second respondent has also stated that the parents of the deceased member may be eligible for Provident Fund benefits if they are certified by the employer as dependent at the time of death and quantum of Provident Fund benefits will be decided only after deciding the number of members in the family according to the Employee's Provident Funds Scheme Provisions under Para 70(ii). The petitioner is not eligible for any pensionary benefits under the Employee's Pension Scheme, 1995 as the parents do not form part of 'family' under Para 2(vii) of the Employee's Pension Scheme, 1995 and submitted the rejection letter dated 31.03.2014 is in accordance with law.

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the first respondent and learned counsel for the second respondent. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is right in claiming Provident Fund, since, the deceased son has executed the Nomination Form and has mentioned his parents name only and the deceased has not included his wife as one of the nominees prior to his death.

5.However, the learned counsel for the second respondent vehemently stated that the wife of the deceased also is entitled to the Provident Fund, according to the Employee's Provident Funds Scheme Provisions.

6.On considering the rival arguments, this Court is of the view that the petitioner's son died in the year 2005 and his wife has remarried in the year 2007 and the Succession O.P was filed in the year 2008. After the lapse of 15 years, the wife may not claim the amount since, she is remarried and not in contact with the petitioner's family. Moreover, the nomination states that only the petitioner and his wife are entitled to. Therefore, this Court directs the second respondent to pay the Provident Fund amount in entirety to the petitioner and his wife.

7.So far as the pension is concerned, the respondent counsel vehemently stated that the pension cannot be disbursed to the parents of