Judgment P.D.DINAKARAN, J. ( 1 ) The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorated mandamus calling for the records relating to the Order No.57- 283538/DP/TUT/96, dated March 13, 1998, and quash the same and directing the respondent to pay the arrears of dependant benefit amount with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from December 22, 1995 till the date of payment and to pay the monthly benefit amount to her. ( 2 ) Admittedly, the petitioner is the mother of one Suresh Kumar, who died on December 22, 1995 leaving his wife Annapoorani, father, mother and sister. ( 3 ) As per Rule 58(1)(A) of Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950, a widow and children of the deceased employee have got preferential entitlement to the benefit of the insurance scheme under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Only in the absence of widow and children, the benefit is payable to other dependants, viz., the parents. ( 4 ) Section 60 of the Act bars any transfer of right to receive any amount of any benefit under the Act, which reads as follows : "Section 60: Benefit not assignable or attachable.-(1). The right to receive any payment of any benefit under this Act shall not be transferable or assignable. (2) No cash benefit payable under this Act shall be liable to attachment or sale in execution of any decree or order of any Court." ( 5 ) While so, the Manager of the Local Office of the ESI Corporation at Tuticorin, by his letter, dated January 22, 1998, permitted Annapoorani, the wife of Sureshkumar, to receive the amount through her father in law or mother in law, viz., the parents of Suresh Kumar. However, by the subsequent letter, dated March 13, 1998, Annapoorani, the wife of Suresh Kumar, was informed that no authorisation to any third party could be entertained, presumably in view of the bar under Section 60 of the Act. Hence, the mother of Suresh Kumar has preferred the above writ petition challenging the proceedings, dated March 13, 1998, based on the earlier proceedings dated January 22, 1998, by the Manager of Local Office of the ESI Corporation. ( 6 ) I am unable to appreciate either the claim of the petitioner or the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard for two reasons, viz. ( 6 ) I am unable to appreciate either the claim of the petitioner or the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard for two reasons, viz. : (i) the Manager, Local Office is not a competent authority to permit Annapoorani, the wife of Suresh Kumar, to receive the benefits through her father-in-law or mother-in-law; and (ii) the petitioner is not entitled to claim any right based on the proceedings, dated January 22, 1998, as the same is contrary to Section 60 of the Act, which bars any transfer of benefits conferred under the provisions of the Act, as it is a settled law that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. ( 7 ) The writ petition fails and therefore, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W. P. M.P. No. 9711 of 1998 is also dismissed.