JUDGMENT : Though the relief sought for in the present writ petition is to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the issues involved in the present writ petition deserve moulding of the relief in the interest of justice. 2. The writ petitioner, admittedly, is the legally wedded wife of Late. S.Muthumani, who was employed as Sub Inspector of Police in F2 Police Station, Egmore and passed away. Admittedly, there is no counter claim in respect of the status of the writ petitioner as the wife of Late.Sri.S.Muthumani, who was working as Sub Inspector of Police. 3. The grievances of the writ petitioner is that she filed a Succession Certificate in O.P.No.263/2012 on the file of the District Judge, Tuticorin and subsequently, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat for settlement at the request of the parties. The mother of the deceased employee also claimed 50% of the death benefits as well as the pensionary benefits due to the deceased employee. In other words, the mother-in-law of the writ petitioner, Sri.S.Shanmugathammal also claimed 50% of the share in terminal and pensionary benefits due to the deceased employee. Under these circumstances, the parties had chosen to arrive a compromise and accordingly, a memo was filed before the Lok Adalat and unfortunately the Lok Adalat, without even considering the provisions of the law, accepted the terms of settlement for sharing of the pensionary benefits and passed an order on 12th September 2015. The terms of settlement was entered into between the writ petitioner as well as her mother-in-law in S.O.P.263/12, are as follows:- 4. As far as the terms of settlement arrived between the parties before the Lok Adalat, the properties and other bank deposits or immovables, the same can be shared between the parties as per the terms of settlement. However, the terminal and pensionary benefits can never be shared between the wife and the mother of the deceased employee with reference to the Pension Rules in force. Thus, the terms of settlement arrived between the parties before the Lok Adalat is to be restricted to the extent of sharing the immovable and other immovable properties belonged to the deceased employee. As far as the terminal and pensionary benefits are concerned, the same is to be settled strictly in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Pension Rule 1978. 5. Thus, the terms of settlement arrived between the parties before the Lok Adalat is to be restricted to the extent of sharing the immovable and other immovable properties belonged to the deceased employee. As far as the terminal and pensionary benefits are concerned, the same is to be settled strictly in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Pension Rule 1978. 5. As per the Pension Rules, the legally wedded wife is competent to receive the terminal and pensionary benefits and the same cannot be shared by the mother of the deceased employee as per the Pension Rules. When the legally wedded wife is very much alive and set out the claim to receive the terminal and pensionary benefits, the authorities competent are bound to settle the same only in favour of the wife and the pensionary benefits can never be shared between the parties, which is in violation of the very scheme of pension itself. 6. The facts enumerated in the writ petition reveals that the mother of the deceased employee also made a claim with reference to the terminal and pensionary benefits due to the deceased employee and a compromise was arrived, based on some force before the Lok Adalat. Unfortunately, the Lok Adalat also failed to consider the statutory provisions and no settlement can be permitted in violation of statutory provisions. 7. Any terms of settlement running contrary to the statute or rules, can never be considered as a valid contract and such conditions are to be declared as void. As far as the pensionary benefits are concerned, the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules are unambiguous that the same are to be settled in favour of the wife. Thus, any terms of settlement granted between the parties, which all are running contrary to the provisions of law, can never be approved by the Lok Adalat. Thus, the Lok Adalat failed to consider the basic principles in the matter of settlement of terminal and pensionary benefits and allowed the parties to sign the terms of settlement, which resulted, filing of the present writ petition by the writ petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a submission that the writ petitioner was forced to sign the terms of settlement and she had not signed voluntarily. 8. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a submission that the writ petitioner was forced to sign the terms of settlement and she had not signed voluntarily. However, such contentions cannot be accepted at this point of time in the writ petition as the writ petitioner had signed the terms of settlement and not raised any objections at the time of signing the settlement. 9. Beyond the acceptance of the terms of settlement, this Court is bound to verify the statutory validity of the terms of settlement arrived between the parties. Even in the Indian Contract Act, any terms and conditions or agreement entered into between the parties, if in violation of any statute or opposed to public policy, such covenants can be declared as null and void. This being the basic principles of Law of Contract as well as the Lok Adalat Act contemplates the compromise must be voluntarily made between the parties, this Court is of an undoubted opinion that the award of the Lok Adalat passed in between the writ petitioner as well as the mother of the deceased employee, regarding the settlement of terminal and pensionary benefits are to be declared as null and void. 10. It is useful to refer the counter filed by the Principal Accountant General of Tamil Nadu. The Principal Accountant General of Tamil Nadu has enumerated the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and clearly stated that the pension cannot be shared between the wife and the mother of the deceased employee and the relevant portion of the counter statement is as follows:- “3. In this connection, the connected rule provision is submitted below: (a) As per Rule 49(13)(b)(i) of Tamilnadu Pension Rules, the family pension in respect of the deceased government servant is payable initially to the spouse of the deceased government. Then only other family members, Children, parents, legally adopted children, failing which the mother, only in the case of unmarried Government servant subject to the condition that such person declares to be dependent on the deceased Government servant. Then only other family members, Children, parents, legally adopted children, failing which the mother, only in the case of unmarried Government servant subject to the condition that such person declares to be dependent on the deceased Government servant. The relevant portion of the Rule is reiterated below: (b) It is clear from the above rule provision, that only the petitioner Smt Lilly Rose, wife of the deceased is eligible to receive family pension and the Court Order is incontravention of the rule provision and Government, the first respondent is competent authority to relax the rule provision and issue orders sanctioning family pension as per the settlement deed. On receipt of the same along with family pension proposals only, this respondent office can take further action in the instant case.” 11. Even, the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu prayed that this Court may pass such orders as it may deem fit. The Accountant General never prayed for to dismiss the writ petition. 12. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Award of the Lok Adalat is to be restricted to the extent of the immovable and movable properties belonged to the deceased employee and accordingly,the same shall be shared between the writ petitioner as well as her mother-in-law. However, the terminal and pensionary benefits of the deceased employee, Late.Sri.S.Muthumani is concerned, the same are to be settled only in favour of the writ petitioner by following the procedures as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. 13. The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents made a submission that based on the Lok Adalat award, the Director General of Police sent a proposal to the Government to relax the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. Such a proposal ought not to have submitted by the Director General of Police. Contrarily, appropriate applications ought to have filed before the Lok Adalat for the purpose of reviewing the award passed. Any such award or compromise arrived between the parties, if found not in consonance with the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, can never be approved by the competent authorities. The competent authorities are duty bound to enlighten the authorities regarding the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules for the purpose of settling the terminal and pensionary benefits of the Government employee. 14. The competent authorities are duty bound to enlighten the authorities regarding the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules for the purpose of settling the terminal and pensionary benefits of the Government employee. 14. In the present case, the proposal to relax the Rules are sent in a routine manner and such an action can never be appreciated. 15. The power of relaxation is only an exception and can never be used for the purpose of diluting or violating the statutory rules. The power of relaxation cannot be used in an arbitrary manner to deprive the wife of the deceased employee to receive the pensionary and terminal benefits of the deceased employee. Thus, the power of relaxation can never be exercised by the competent authorities for the purpose of depriving the wife of an employee to receive the terminal and pensionary benefits. The power of relaxation is to be exercised, only to mitigate the gross injustice, if any occurred. Contrarily, the same cannot be utilized for the purpose of depriving a person from getting her right as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. Thus, submission of proposal to the Government to grant relaxation of Rule itself is perverse and untenable. Contrarily, it is duty mandatory on the part of the Director General of Police to appraise the Government by citing the relevant Rules and take appropriate decision. Under these circumstances, the very proposal deserves no consideration on the hands of the 1st respondent/Secretary to Government, Home Department. 16. This being the factum, the relief sought for in the present writ petition is moulded and accordingly, the following orders are passed:- (1) The writ petitioner is entitled to get all the terminal and pensionary benefits due to the deceased employee Late. Sri.S.Muthumani in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978. (2) The respondents are directed to send the Pension proposals to the Principal Accountant General of Tamil Nadu within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Principal Accountant General shall consider the Pension proposal and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the pension proposals from the competent authorities. (3) As far as the Lok Adalat award is concerned, it is restricted only in respect of the immovable and movable properties belongs to the deceased employee and the award is declared as null and void in respect of the compromise arrived between the parties with reference to the settlement of terminal and pensionary benefits as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978. 17. With the above directions, the writ petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.