Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 had filed a counter affidavit. Paragraph 10 of the said counter affidavit reads as follows: "10. I submit that as per Service Record of No.811020662 Late Ex Const P.Chandran, his first wife Smt C.Mangalambigai expired on 24.11.1992 leaving behind two surviving daughters namely Miss C.Deepa and Miss C.Poornima. After death of his first wife, No.811020662 Late Ex Const. P.Chandran married Smt C.Ranganayaki, who is still alive and living with a minor daughter namely Miss C.Mohanapriya. In terms of Rule 53 of CCS (Pension) Rule 1972, valid nomination of his first wife namely C.Mangalambigai, second wife Smt C.Ranganayaki and three surviving daughter as mentioned above are already available in the service record of above late Const. P.Chandran. But no documents as well as nomination of Smt C.Kanchana as wedded wife of Late Const. P.Chandran is available in service record of Late Const. P.Chandran. Besides this there was no mention about Smt C.Kanchana as a legal wedded wife of Late Const. P.Chandran in the legal heir certificate issued by Tahsildar, Salem. Hence, no action has been taken by this Office on the memorandum of compromise deed entered on 22.04.2004 and papers for pensionary benefits prepared in favour of eligible next of kin in equal share as per rules. 3. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, it goes without saying that it would be open to the petitioner to make her claims before the appropriate forum to claim her share, if any, in the pensionary benefits of Late P.Chandran, in the manner known to law. No costs.