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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 5812

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI
K.CHOODAMANI – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent



##PAGE1##

W.P. No.2868 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.01.2026

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

W.P. No.2868 of 2024 and

WMP.No.3127 of 2024

K.Choodamani … Petitioner

Vs

1.UNION OF INDIA,

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FERTILIZERS,

MINISTRY OF CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS, SHASTRI BHAWAN,

NEW DELHI - 110 001.

2.THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

MADRAS FERTILIZERS LTD., MANALI,

CHENNAI - 600 068. … Respondents

Prayer :

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying

to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the

order vide letter reference No. GM P & A/PF 0612/2023, dated 7.8.2023 passed

by the 2nd Respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the 2nd

Respondent to re-determine the retirement benefits payable to the Petitioner’s

husband and pay the same to the Petitioner

For petitioner : Mr.K.Venkatesan

Page 1 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/02/2026 05:02:13 pm )

##PAGE2##

W.P. No.2868 of 2024

For respondents

For R1 : Mr.K.Ramanamoorthy,

Senior Panel Counsel

For R2 : Ms.Rita Chandrasekar

for M/s.Aiyar & Dolia

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed praying to quash the order vide

letter reference No. GM P & A/PF 0612/2023, dated 7.8.2023 passed by the 2nd

Respondent and consequently to direct the 2nd Respondent to re-determine the

retirement benefits payable to the Petitioner’s husband and pay the same to the

Petitioner.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

the petitioner’s husband namely S.Alwan had been employed in the second

respondent company, a public sector undertaking coming under the first

respondent Ministry and he rendered services in the second respondent

company for more than two decades. However, the petitioner’s husband was

missing since 31.05.2001 and the petitioner could not trace her husband’s

whereabouts despite her best efforts. Since the petitioner could not trace her

husband, she filed a suit in OS.No.360 of 2018 on the file of District Munsif

Court, Ambattur for declaration declaring that the petitioner’s husband attained

Page 2 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/02/2026 05:02:13 pm )

##PAGE3##

W.P. No.2868 of 2024

civil death. The District Munsif Court, Ambattur passed a judgment and degree

dated 30.07.2009, declaring that the petitioner’s husband died on 01.06.2008

after statutory period of seven years. Thereafter, the petitioner on the basis of

the order passed by the trial court, filed a claim petition before the second

respondent claiming death cum retirement benefits of the petitioner’s husband.

The second respondent disbursed Rs.3,94,925/- of provident fund on

26.07.2011, Gratuity Rs.1,28,000/- after deducting the amount for the loan

availed by the petitioner’s husband, LIC policy amount of Rs.3,09,047/- on

17.10.2012. However, the respondent did not provide terminal benefits to the

petitioner thereby again she made a petition to the respondents to settle the

terminal benefits including encashment of leave salary and other benefits.

However, the same was not considered. Hence, the petitioner filed writ petition

before this Court in WP.no.27281 of 2017 and this Court by its order dated

20.07.2023, issued direction to the second respondent-Managing Director to

examine the representation and pass appropriate orders, pursuant to which the

present impugned order has been passed as if the petitioner’s husband was

dismissed from service for his unauthorised absence. Challenging the same, the

present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further

Page 3 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/02/2026 05:02:13 pm )

##PAGE4##

W.P. No.2868 of 2024

submit that admittedly the petitioner’s husband entered service in the year 1971.

He was allegedly dismissed from service by the respondents in the year 2001 on

the ground the petitioner’s husband was unauthorisedly absent. However, for the

person who was unauthorisedly absent, the respon

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top