Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2769 (MAD)

Veeraragavan v. Director

2014-08-20

S.VAIDYANATHAN

body2014
Judgment 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to sanction and settle the death benefits of the petitioner's adopted father Mr. Kanagavairavalingam, Laboratory Assistant, Primary Health Center, Ezhichur, Kancheepuram in favour of the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that Mr. Kanagavairavalingam was his uncle and was working as Laboratory Assistant in the Primary Health Center, Ezhichur, Kancheepuram. His uncle married one Vijayakumari and due to misunderstanding between them and even after the persuasive efforts by the elders of both the family members to settle the differences, did not yield result and they decided to separate themselves by means of mutual consent and pursuant to which they have entered into a Divorce Deed dated 11.8.1988. After the divorce, the petitioner was adopted by his uncle as an adopted son and a nomination has been given to the Government for getting the pension, gratuity, family pension and provident fund and nomination papers were also submitted. On 16.7.1998, an unregistered Will was executed by the uncle of the petitioner, granting all the benefits to the petitioner, who is his adopted son. The said Kanagavairavalingam died on 24.10.1998 and in the death certificate, incorporating the names of one Manickammal, sister-in-law of Kanagavairavalingam, Ananda Danalakshmi, Vairavalingam's brother's daughter and K. Veeraraghavan, the petitioner herein. The petitioner is unable to understand as to how the legal heir certificate was obtained for Manickammal and Ananda Danalakshmi who are Class II heirs. As these two persons are Class II heirs, in any event, these two persons cannot be treated as Class I heirs. The petitioner filed O.S.No.176 of 2002, seeking for a declaration that he is the legatee under the registered Will executed by the petitioner's adopted father on 16.7.1998 and in the suit, the Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Ezhichur village, alone was the defendant. The learned District Munsif, Tambaram passed a judgment and decree on 19.7.2004 holding that the petitioner is a legatee under A-1 (Will dated 16.7.1998 executed by the Kanagavairavalingam in favour of him) and is entitled for the decree as prayed for. 3. The defendant in the suit, even though appeared, could not have objected to for such a declaration, as they may not be aware of the real facts. 4. 3. The defendant in the suit, even though appeared, could not have objected to for such a declaration, as they may not be aware of the real facts. 4. Thereafter, on 27.5.2011, the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai-6 addressed a letter to the Deputy Director of Health Services, Kancheepuram, marking a copy to him and it reads as follows:- “Attention of the Deputy Director of Health Services, Kancheepuram is invited to the references cited, and he is informed that the Government in their letter cited have requested to advise the petitioner Thiru N. Kanagavairavalingam to furnish order obtained from the competent Civil Court to the effect that the customary divorce made by the deceased Government Servant and his wife is a valid one and also the documents relating to the legal adoption of Thiru Veeraraghavan by late Thiru N. Kanagavairavalingam Legal Adoption and to obtain the above documents from Thiru Veeraraghavan and send the same to Government. The Deputy Director Health Services, Kancheepuram is therefore requested to obtain the documents required by the Government from Thiru Veeraraghavan and send it to this office on or before 15.6.2011. 2. As the matter is pending for more than 3 years, the Deputy Director of Health Services, Kancheepuram is also requested to bestow her personal attention in this case and arrange to furnish the above said particulars called for by the Government within the stipulated time limit. 3. Any further delay in this matter will be viewed seriously and necessary action will be initiated against the persons responsible for the delay.” 5. On 30.6.2011, the Deputy Director of Health Services, Kancheepuram, has addressed a letter to the petitioner informing that details have been called for from the concerned Officer for processing the application of the petitioner and in the event of failure of the authority to send the details, action would be initiated against him. On 22.7.2011, the petitioner also sent a letter to the Director, Office of the Public Health and Preventive Medicine, stating that there was a customary divorce on 11.8.1998 and that the first wife of the petitioner's uncle could not be traced and that the petitioner was adopted by his uncle Kanagavairavalingam and in terms of the Will, the petitioner is entitled to provident fund etc. Since there was no response, the petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition. 6. Since there was no response, the petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition. 6. No counter has been filed by the respondent. 7. The Civil Court has opined in O.S.No.176 of 2002 by the judgment and decree dated 19.7.2004, that there was a customary divorce between the petitioner's uncle and his wife and that there was a Will executed in favour of the petitioner, issued a declaration as prayed for by the petitioner as stated supra. The respondents have also not disputed that the nomination forms have been given including the name of the three persons. Since the petitioner is having a judgment and decree dated 19.7.2004 in O.S.No.176 of 2002 in his favour, the first respondent is directed to release all the terminal benefits due to the deceased Kanagavairavalingam, to the petitioner in proportion as mentioned in the nomination form, even though the judgment and decree says that the petitioner is entitled to all the reliefs. This Court also makes it clear that in case, the first wife raises any objection on coming to know that the amount has been paid by the Government to these three persons, the amount will have to be refunded to the first wife by these three persons jointly and severally and if they own any property, the said property can be attached by the first wife. Since the amount is going to be paid by the Government to these three persons mentioned supra, no liability will be fastened on the Government or any of the officials, as the amount is going to be released pursuant to the orders of the Court. 8. The writ petition is ordered accordingly and the first respondent is directed to release the funds, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.