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