Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The dispute relates to the payment of terminal benefits and pension benefits in respect of the deceased employee Chinnakalai. The petitioners in W.P. Nos.15273 of 2005 are brothers and the petitioner in W.P. Nos.9832 and 9833 of 2005 is the wife of such deceased Chinnakalai. Though the proceedings for divorce had been initiated during his life time against his wife, ultimately on account of his death, no other persons prosecuted the litigation and same came to an end. In other words, no decree for divorce was granted. .3. After the death of the deceased employee, three Original Applications were filed. Original Application Nos.4081 of 2000 and 3049 of 2003 were filed by the wife of the deceased, seeking direction to the respondents to settle the terminal benefits whereas the Original Application No.4574 of 2000 was filed by the brothers of the deceased, claiming terminal benefits on the ground that their mother Velammal, who was also the heir of the deceased employee, had executed a Will in their favour and the validity of such Will has already been recognized in the Civil Court. The Tribunal, on a perusal of material on record, came to the conclusion that since the proceedings had not culminated in dissolution of marriage, respondent No.3 in W.P. No.15273 of 2005, as widow of the deceased employee, is entitled to receive the family pension. The Tribunal also upheld the claim of the two brothers of the deceased on the basis of Will executed by their mother and held that in so far as other terminal benefits are concerned, half of the amount shall be paid to the two brothers of the deceased employee and other half should be paid to the widow of the deceased. 4. The two brothers of the deceased have filed W.P. No.15273 of 2005, claiming that they should get entire benefits and the present respondent No.3 the widow is not entitled for any of the benefits as divorce proceedings had been initiated on the ground that she was living in adultery with another man even during the lifetime of her husband. The widow of the deceased has also filed two writ petitions viz. W.P. Nos.9832 and 9833 of 2005, claiming that the entire benefits should be paid to her. 5. The widow of the deceased has also filed two writ petitions viz. W.P. Nos.9832 and 9833 of 2005, claiming that the entire benefits should be paid to her. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length, we do not find any merit to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Even though divorce proceedings had been initiated, sine the same had not culminated in dissolution of marriage in law, present respondent No.3 in W.P. No.15273 of 2005 continued as widow of the deceased employee. Under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1970, she is entitled to the amount payable towards monthly pension. However, it is obvious that she is entitled to such pension only till her remarriage. If the department comes to any conclusion regarding her remarriage, at that stage, it would be open to the Department to stop the pension. Thus, W.P. No.15273 of 2005 is liable to be dismissed. 6. So far as the other two writ petitions filed by the widow is concerned, it is claimed by Mr. Sellapandian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the widow was nominee and therefore, entire amount should be paid to her and if others have got any right, it is for them to work out their remedy before the appropriate Forum. .7. On going through the papers relating to nomination, it is found that with regard to Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, the wife C. Kalvikkarasi was the nominee and the brother P. Thangavelu, 1st petitioner in W.P. No.15273 of 2005 was shown as alternative nominee. So far as Family Benefit Fund is concerned, the wife C.Kalvikkarasi alone was described as nominee and there was no alternative nominee. So Far as General Provident Fund is concerned, the nomination dated 12. 1990 indicates that P.Thangavel-petitioner No.1 in W.P. No.15273 of 2005, the brother of the employee was the nominee and sister Ponnuthai was the alternative nominee. In such column, it was specifically mentioned as "My wife Kalvikarasi is not living with me for the past four years. We are separated socially from each other." 8. On the basis of such nomination, the wife/widow claims that entire amount payable towards Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity should be paid to her and the persons entitled to such amount can work out their remedy subsequently. We are separated socially from each other." 8. On the basis of such nomination, the wife/widow claims that entire amount payable towards Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity should be paid to her and the persons entitled to such amount can work out their remedy subsequently. It is no doubt true that when nominee is indicated, ordinarily the amount should be paid to the nominee, who holds such amount as trustee of all the legal heirs entitled to the amount. In the present case, we find that widow has been shown as nominee in respect of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity and Family Benefit Fund whereas the first petitioner in W.P. No.15273 of 2005 has been indicated as nominee in respect of General Provident Fund. 9. If we accept the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the widow, we can only foresee further litigation in future. On the basis of analysis of materials on record, it is obvious that the widow of the deceased employee and also the mother of the deceased employee were entitled to such fund, which is deemed to have been vested with them immediately on the death of the employee. Thereafter, on the death of the mother, her share in the property (in this case, the amount payable towards half of the D.C.R.G. and Family Benefit Fund) was to devolve upon her heir. Since she had executed Will, which was found to be genuine, her two surviving sons should get such amount as legatees. In such view of the matter, in order to avoid any further litigation, we feel that interest of justice would be served, by directing that 50% of the amount payable towards Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, Family Benefit Fund and General Provident Fund shall be paid directly to the widow C. Kalvikarasi and each of the petitioners in W.P. No.15273 of 2005 shall be entitled to 25% of such amount. This direction may be complied with within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the above clarification and modification, the judgment passed by the Tribunal is upheld. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly without any cost. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.Ps. are closed. We place on record our appreciation for the fair manner in which the matter was placed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.