##PAGE1##

W.P.No.2310 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

W.P.No.2310 of 2025

And

W.M.P.No.54509 of 2025

K.Rose ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

Rep. by its Secretary,

Transport Department,

Secretariat,

Fort St.George,

Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Managing Director,

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation

Villupuram Division,

No.3/137, Salamedu,

Valutha Reddy Post,

Villupuram.

3.The General Manager,

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation

Kancheepuram Division,

Chennai Banagaluru High Way,

Kancheepuram – 631 552.

4.The Administrator

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation

Employees Pension Trust,

Thiruvalluvar House,

No.2, Pallavan Salai,

Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondents

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 03:45:55 pm )

W.P.No.2310 of 2025

Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the

third respondent by its proceedings Letter No.1157/Pension 1/TNSTC

(Villu)/Kanchi/2024 dated 27.11.2024 and quash the same and further

directing the respondents to sanction the family person to the

petitioner from the death of her husband Mr.S.Kannan on 19.07.2024.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Manoharan

For Respondents : Mr.P.Balathandayutham for R1

Special Government Pleader

Mr.A.Vinoth Raj for R2 and R3

Mr.CSK Sathish for R4

Standing Counsel

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent

by its proceedings Letter No.1157/Pension 1/TNSTC (Villu)/Kanchi/

2024 dated 27.11.2024 and quash the same and to direct the

respondents to sanction family pension to the petitioner from the

death of her husband Mr.S.Kannan on 19.07.2024.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 03:45:55 pm )

W.P.No.2310 of 2025

that the petitioner’s husband worked as Conductor in the third

respondent Corporation and retired from service on attaining the age

of superannuation and was receiving pension till the date of his death

on 19.07.2024 and thereafter the petitioner approached the third

respondent for sanction of family pension, however, family pension has

not yet been sanctioned to the petitioner. The learned counsel further

submitted that there was matrimonial dispute between the petitioner

and her husband and hence, due to frustration, the petitioner’s

husband during his lifetime had made declaration not to disburse

family pension to the petitioner and on that basis, the respondents are

not sanctioning family pension to the petitioner and further submitted

that as on date, there is no valid divorce between the petitioner and

her husband and hence, the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of her

deceased husband and she is entitled for family pension. The learned

counsel further submitted that the respondents are governed by the

relevant Rules and not by the petitioner’s husband’s declaration.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3

submitted that the petitioner’s husband Kannan had executed a sworn

affidavit dated 31.10.2007 stating that his wife has deserted him and

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 03:45:55 pm )

W.P.No.2310 of 2025

has filed a maintenance case against him and declared that he is the

sole person entitled to receive his pension and after his death no one

including his wife is eligible to receive his family pension. Hence the

respondents are unable to process the petitioner’s claim for family

pension.

4.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused

the materials available on record.

5.Perusal of records disclose that there was matrimonial

dispute between the petitioner and her husband and the petitioner’s

husband during his lifetime had made declaration that he is the sole

person entitled to receive his pension and after his death no one

including his wife is eligible to receive