Judgment 1. Mr. A. Jeyaraman, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents and by consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the second respondent, dated 21.11.2013 and consequently, seeks a direction to the respondents to settle the pension and terminal benefits available due to the death of the petitioner's husband and also to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 3. Though the writ petition was filed with such a prayer, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied, if only, the terminal benefits are given to her. 4. The case of the petitioner is as follows:- Her husband was appointed as Tradesman in the respondents Corporation and died on 25.09.2013 after working for more than 29 years. Her husband earlier married one Usha in the year 1983. There was some matrimonial dispute between the petitioner's husband and the said Usha and H.M.O.P No.117 of 1994 was filed seeking divorce. A consent decree was passed. Thereafter, the deceased married the petitioner on 29.10.1987, and out of the wedlock, two children were born. Subsequently, the said Usha died on 25.10.1996 and her mother-in-law also died on 19.05.2002. There are no other legal heirs for the deceased husband of the petitioner except the petitioner and two children. When she applied for the family pension and other terminal benefits available due to the death of the petitioner's husband, the respondents passed the impugned communication calling upon the petitioner to get the details as to whether any other legal heirs are available through the first wife. The petitioner has produced the legal heirship certificate issued by the competent Tahsildar, Dindigul, on 10.10.2013, showing that the petitioner and other two children are the legal heirs of the deceased. Even thereafter, the respondents have not disbursed the amount due. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 6. It is seen that the petitioner's husband was working as Tradesman in the respondent Corporation and died after service of 29 years. The petitioner claims that she is the wife of the deceased and out of their wedlock, two children were born. 6. It is seen that the petitioner's husband was working as Tradesman in the respondent Corporation and died after service of 29 years. The petitioner claims that she is the wife of the deceased and out of their wedlock, two children were born. In support of her claim, she has produced the legal heir certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Dindigul, dated 10.10.2013. 7. It is also stated by the petitioner that the first wife Usha died already and her mother-in-law also passed away later. According to the petitioner, there are no other legal heirs except the petitioner and two other children. The said claim is supported by the Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Dindigul. It is not the case of the Department that there are some other legal heirs and a rival claim is being made by those persons. 8. On the other hand, the Department is only presuming that there may be some legal heirs of the deceased through first wife. I am of the view that there is no reason or basis for such presumption warranting the production of Succession Certificate obtained from the Court of law. As on date, when there are no rival claims made before the respondent Corporation, there will not be any difficulty for them to act on the legal heirship certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Dindigul. 9. Accordingly, I find that the petitioner is justified in contending that the impugned proceedings is not at all warranted. Consequently, the impugned proceedings dated 21.11.2013, is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 19.12.2013, in the light of the legal heir certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Dindigul and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.