While W.P. No.1504 of 2017 has been preferred seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.12.2016 and for forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from disbursing the amount of Gratuity, Employees Provident Fund, Leave Salary, Group Insurance Policy amount, Death cum Retirement Benefit amount and other payments in favour of the third respondent, W.P. No. 12669 of 2017 has been preferred seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from disbursing the terminal benefits of late.G.Manickam in favour of respondents 3 to 5.
2. Inasmuch as the relief sought in both these writ petitions is intertwined, they are considered and decided by this common order.
3. According to the petitioner, she married G.Manickam on 06.12.1978 as per the Hindu rites and customs in the presence of relatives and friends and through the said wedlock, three children, viz., Sugumar, Poornima and Priyadharshini were born and they are all staying with the petitioner. After some time, Manickam left the family in the lurch and lived with another woman, viz., Muniyammal @ Selvi, the third respondent in W.P. No.12669 of 2017 and out of their relationship, two children, viz., Priya and Preethi were born. In due course, Manickam spent all his earnings for Muniyammal @ Selvi and her children and the petitioner and her children were not even taken care of by him. Suppressing the fact that the petitioner is his legally wedded wife, Manickam has given the names of Muniyammal @ Selvi and the children born through her, as nominees in the bank. Therefore, the petitioner, knowing pretty well that Manickam was going to retire from service on reaching the age of superannuation, gave a representation on 17.12.2016 to the respondent bank requesting not to disburse the terminal benefits of Manickam to Muniyammal @ Selvi. On receipt of the same, the Chief Manager of the respondent bank turned down the petitioner's request. Hence, the present writ petitions seeking the aforestated relief.
4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed in W.P. No. 1504 of 2016.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent bank would submit that the petitioner, after her representation dated 17.12.2016, has not substantiated her stand that she is the legally wedded wife of Manickam and consequently, on the date of retirement, viz., 31.12.2016, the respondent bank, as per law, calculated the retirement benefits due to Manickam and settled the same to him; therefore, the allegation made by the petitioner that the respondent bank is going to disburse the retirement benefits of Manickam to his nominee, viz., Muniyammal @ Selvi, is wrong.
6. This Court also finds considerable force in the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent bank. The reason is when Manickam retired from service on 31.12.2016, his terminal benefits, viz., Gratuity, Employees Provident Fund, etc. were settled to him on the very next day. Therefore, the rejection order dated 29.12.2016 passed by the respondent bank cannot be found fault with. Further, it is beyond the ken of this Court as to how the petitioner can seek disposal of her representation dated 17.12.2016 when the same has already been rejected by the respondent bank vide order dated 29.12.2016. However, it is open to the petitioner to work out her remedy in the manner known to law.
In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed as being devoid of merits. No costs. Connected W.M.Ps. are closed. 09.06.2017 mrr/cad Index : yes/no To
1. The State Bank of India, Head Office, No.16, Circletop House, Aparna Complex 7th Floor, College Road, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006.
2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Kottturpuram Branch, Chennai 600 085.
T. RAJA, J., mrr/cad W.P.Nos. 1504 & 12669 of 2017 and W.M.P.Nos. 1407 & 13498 of 2017 09.06.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in