SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 64152

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S.RAMESH, R.SAKTHIVEL, JJ
R.Banumathi – Appellant
Versus
The Chief Educational Officer, Vellore District, Vellore Collectorate Office, Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Writ Appeal | W.A.NO.2014 OF 2021 | CMP NO.12887 OF 2021 | W.P. No.12565 of 2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Maheswaran Prabakaran for Mr.M.A.Gowthaman
For the Respondents:Mr.K.H.Ravikumar Government Advocate, Mr.R.T.Vishnu

Nominees of a deceased government employee under the Contributory Pension Scheme do not have absolute rights; estate laws apply, ensuring legal heirs can claim their shares.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 - Clarification on Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS) benefits and their distribution under estate law - The court affirmed that a nominee does not acquire absolute rights over CPS benefits, which are estate properties. Legal heirs are entitled to their shares as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court clarified that nomination does not equate to ownership; it merely authorizes receipt of benefits. The petitioner, as a Class I legal heir, is entitled to a share. (Paras 30, 48 and 49)

(B) Nomination - Its implications - A mere nomination is not a testament of ownership but only designates an individual to receive benefits. This designation does not eliminate the rights of legal heirs. The deceased's estate must be distributed according to succession laws. (Paras 12, 21 and 48)

Facts of the case:
The mother of the deceased sought a share of various service benefits and pension meant for her son, who was a government employee. The single judge ruled against her on grounds of existing rules regarding entitlement to benefits post-mortem.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court established entitlement under CPS to nominees does not exclude legal heirs. The petitioner has a right to 1/3 share of CPS and other service benefits accumulated during the deceased's employment, despite nominee designation.

Issues: The main questions were whether CPS forms part of the estate and whether the benefits should be distributed amongst all legal heirs despite nominations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined CPS benefits are part of the estate, meaning nominees are merely trustees without ownership rights, reaffirming the principle that legal heirs can claim their rightful shares.

Result: Writ appeal allowed; original dismissal set aside.

Table of Content
1. writ petition for pension benefits of deceased employee. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding entitlement to pension and benefits. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court's analysis of cps and nomination rights. (Para 8 , 10)
4. substantive rights of nominee versus estate of deceased. (Para 31 , 35)
5. final order on distribution of compensation and benefits. (Para 48 , 49)

JUDGMENT

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

The appellant filed the writ petition in W.P. No.12565 of 2021 on April 26, 2021, praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue a separate and individual cheque / demand draft for her 1/3 share in Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS), Employees Family Security Fund and other service benefits of her son - late S.Vijayakumar, who had joined the service on December 9, 2005 and was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Panchayat Union Elementary School [P.U.E. School], Chitteri before his demise on January 30, 2021.

2. Upon hearing either side, the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition vide Order dated June 10, 2021. The main reasons for the dismissal are captured in Paragraph Nos.3 and 5 of the said Order and they read thus:

"3. Under the Pension Schemes/Rules, the spouse of the Government employee is entitled to get family pension. As far as the terminal benefits are concerned, if there is any specific nomination in the service records of the Government employee, then the nominee is entitled to receive the same. In the absence of any nomination, the benefit is sought to be settled in favour of the spouse. In the present case, the wife of the deceased employee is entitled for pensionary benefits and for family pension under the Pension Scheme. As far as the parents of the deceased employee is concerned, even in case they are not having other sources of income, they are entitled to approach the competent authorities under the provisions of the Senior Citizen Act for redressal of their grievances. Contrarily, the family pension or pensionary benefits cannot be settled in violation of the Pension Rules/Pension Schemes.

… … … … …

5. The petitioner is unable to establish any right with reference to the Pension Scheme/Rules. In the absence of Rules, the family pension or pensionary benefits cannot be shared between the legal heirs. The right of property to the legal heirs of a deceased employee is no way connected with the Pension Scheme and payment of family pension to the spouse of the deceased employee. The petitioner as the mother of a deceased employee may have legal right in the property. However, she cannot claim the benefit of family pension or to seek the relief of sharing the family pension which is to be paid to the spouse of the deceased employee as per the Pension Rules."

3. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal Order dated June 10, 2021 passed in W.P. No.12565 of 2021, the writ petitioner therein has preferred this writ appeal.

4. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their rank in the writ petition.

5. The submissions of Mr.Maheswaran Prabakaran for Mr. M.A. Gowthaman, learned Counsel on record for the appellant / writ petitioner can be summarised as follows:

(i) Writ petitioner is the mother of late S.Vijayakumar. Fourth respondent is his wife and the fifth respondent is his daughter.

(ii) Said late S.Vijayakumar was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Panchayat Union Elementary School [P.U.E. School], Chitteri. He joined the service on December 9, 2005.

(iii) The fifth respondent is a baby born to the couple through In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) method, who is now 8 years old. The fourth respondent humiliated and caused severe mental agonies to the deceased son of the writ petitioner due to which, he committed suicide on January 30, 2021.

(iv) The suicide prompted the writ petitioner to file a complaint against the fourth respondent and an First Information Report (FIR) under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 ( IPC ) was register

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top