JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to pay the terminal benefits including Gratuity, LIC, Provident Fund and death benefits of the deceased viz., T.Ganesan to the petitioners with interest at 12% per annum w.e.f. 18.10.2000. 2. The petitioners claim the terminal benefits of late Mr.T.Ganesan by claiming themselves to be his legal representatives. It is pleaded in the petition, that late Mr.T.Ganesan died on 11.05.1991 without leaving behind any class-I legal heirs. The petitioners, being brother and sisters, are entitled to retiral benefits, by way of succession. 3. On notice, counter has been filed by the third respondent, wherein in response to the averements made in the writ petition, a specific stand has been taken that Letters of Administration was granted in favour of the third respondent, in the probate proceedings, further more she is also issued succession certificate to claim the retiral benefits of late Mr.T.Ganesan. It has specifically been stated in the counter, that the petitioners were parties to the probate proceedings. The petitioners have, intentionally and willfully, concealed the material facts, from this Court while filing this writ petition. The stand of the counsel for the petitioners is that it is mentioned, in the affidavit that in reply to legal notice, the respondents had informed the petitioners that the retiral benefits were paid to respondent No.3 under the letters of administration issued in favour of the respondent No.3, therefore, it is not the case of concealment. This contention is misconceived. The petitioners have not disclosed that they were parties to probate proceedings, as the disclosure of this fact would have rendered to writ to be not maintainable. 4. In view of the stand taken in the counter, the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the present writ petition, to claim the retiral benefits of late Mr.T.Ganesan. In pursuance to probate proceedings, letters of administration stood issued in favour of the third respondent, the petitioners were also parties to those proceedings. The writ petition also deserves to be dismissed, for concealment of material facts, as the petitioners intentionally and willfully failed to disclose the factum of the probate proceedings, in pursuance to which retiral benefits of late Mr.T.Ganesan were paid to respondent No.3. 5. The writ petition also deserves to be dismissed, for concealment of material facts, as the petitioners intentionally and willfully failed to disclose the factum of the probate proceedings, in pursuance to which retiral benefits of late Mr.T.Ganesan were paid to respondent No.3. 5. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed with cost, which are assessed at Rs.5,000/-. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.