BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI W.P(MD)No.4593 of 2026 and WMP(MD) No.3865 of 2026 Samayathal ... Petitioner Vs

1.The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Trichy Region,Trichy.

2.The Deputy Manager (P & S), Pension Section, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Trichy Region, Trichy.

3.The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees Corporation Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002. ...Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for the records relating to the Impugned order in Parvai. ThaAaPoKa/Thiru/Pension/PS2/3940/2025 dated 07.07.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents not to insist upon production of any succession certificate and to sanction and disburse family pension to the petitioner, being the legally wedded wife of Late Mr.

Palanisamy, with arrears from the date of his death.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.M. Xavier For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Ramaiah Standing Counsel For R3 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh Standing Counsel

O R D E R

The petitioner is a widow. Her husband, namely Palanisamy, who served as a driver in the respondent Transport Corporation died on 21.05.2025. The petitioner, with a grievance that she has not been provided with the terminal benefits and other benefits due to her husband has submitted a representation to the respondents and also filed this writ petition.

2.Mr.K.Ramaiah, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents 1 & 2. Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the third respondent and submits that the deceased employee has made a request in writing that all the terminal benefits due to him has to be paid only to his son and not to his wife and therefore they have not considered the case of this petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased employee.

3.In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's son has given no objection for disbursement of the terminal benefits due to his father to his mother. He also stated in his letter that due to some misunderstanding, his father has given a letter not to settle the terminal benefits to his wife. The petitioner has also enclosed a copy of the No objection Certificate given by her son, namely, Sudhakar.

4.This Court considered the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.

5.If the deceased employee has given a letter in writing that his terminal benefits have to be disbursed only to his son, and when his son is not having any objection to disburse the benefits to his mother/the wife of the deceased employee, the respondent transport Corporation has to necessarily consider the case of this petitioner. The petitioner's request for terminal benefits of her deceased husband has been rejected by the respondent Corporation on the ground of objections raised by the deceased employee. The petitioner has enclosed the No Objection letter given by her son.

6.In view of the specific stand taken by the petitioner and the reason for objections and considering the No Objection letter given by the petitioner's son, the order impugned in this writ petition is set aside. This writ petition is allowed, with a direction to the respondent Corporation to verify with the son of the deceased employee and the petitioner and consider the case of this petitioner, based on the legal heir certificate, within a reasonable time. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

19.02.2026 NCC: Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes vrn To

1.The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Trichy Region,Trichy.

2.The Deputy Manager (P & S), Pension Section, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Trichy Region, Trichy.

3.The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transpor