IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.11.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

R.Saraswathi …Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,

Rep. by its Secretary,

Finance PGC Department,

Secretariat,

Fort St. George,

Chennai – 600 009.

2. Thalavai/Commandant,

Tamil Nadu Special Task Force,

Team – 4, Kovaipudur, Coimbatore – 641042.

3. Rajeshwari ...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the rejection order of the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.T2/13401/2017 dated 23.04.2018 quash the same and direct the 2^nd respondent to implement Government Order in G.O.No.59 dated 22.02.2016 issued by the Finance PGC

Department and provide all other benefits to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : M/s.K.Jeenath Begum

for Mr.V.Elangovan

For Respondents : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, Special Government Pleader (for R1 & R2)

No appearance (for R3)

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first and second respondents and perused the record.

2.The case of the petitioner in brief is that her son was appointed as Police Constable in the Tamil Nadu Special Task Force on 18.01.2011; and that he had deceased while discharging duty on 15.11.2017.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that her son on securing a job as Police Constable got married to 3^rd respondent on 19.06.2013 and do not have issues; and that her son/the deceased employee had appointed her as his nominee to receive the contributory pension and all other terminal benefits.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the death of her son, she is entitled to receive all the monetary benefits including the amounts under the Contributory Pension scheme, being the nominee and as the said amounts were not given, she has approached the authorities and submitted a representation dated 29.01.2018 through her husband; and that the 2^nd respondent without considering the said representation in a proper and correct prospective, rejected the same on 23.04.2018. Assailing the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first and second respondents.

6.The first and second respondents by counter affidavit contended that the petitioner’s son /deceased employee, while alive, after getting married to the 3^rd respondent, had submitted application for change of nominee and appointed his wife/3^rd respondent as his nominee on 23.05.2015, being entitled to receive the various benefits due to him in the event of any untoward incident happening.

7. The first and second respondents further contended that since, as per the records, the 3^rd respondent has been nominated by the deceased employee/petitioner’s son, as nominee during his lifetime, it is only the said nominee who is entitled to receive the benefits and for the said reason, the 2^nd respondent by considering the request submitted by the petitioner on 10.01.2018 through her husband issued impugned communication rejecting the claim.

8.I have taken all their respective contentions as such.

9.Though the petitioner claims that her deceased son had mentioned her name as nominee, while joining the service as constable in the year 2011, however, it is noted that on getting married in the year 2013 changed his nomination by submitting fresh nomination form in the month of May 2015, whereby he has shown the name of the 3^rd respondent as nominee.

10. The 2^nd respondent / on receiving the change request submitted by the deceased employee, substituting the nomination from his mother to his wife, have recorded the name of the 3^rd respondent as nominee to receive all the benefits to which the deceased employee is entitled to. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim that the first and second respondents are liable to pay the amounts due to the deceased employee, to her, even after her deceased son having changed th