The Madras High Court has expressed its inability to come to the rescue of an 80-year-old woman, who couldn’t get a share of the terminal benefits meant for her dead son because he had named only his wife as the nominee in his service records.Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy said no direction could be issued under writ jurisdiction to the employer to pay 50% of the benefits to the mother, since the rules permit payment only to the nominee.
CHENNAICannot direct payment of terminal benefits to mother if son had nominated wife: HC
Legal CorrespondentCHENNAI 20 JUNE 2020 21:40 ISTUPDATED: 20 JUNE 2020 21:40 IST
‘Rules permit payment only to nominee’
The Madras High Court has expressed its inability to come to the rescue of an 80-year-old woman, who couldn’t get a share of the terminal benefits meant for her dead son because he had named only his wife as the nominee in his service records.
Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy said no direction could be issued under writ jurisdiction to the employer to pay 50% of the benefits to the mother, since the rules permit payment only to the nominee.
“We cannot compel the respondent authorities to act against the law, and a mandamus (direction) to that effect may not be permissible,” the Bench said and upheld an order passed by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, who too had taken a similar view on the woman’s writ petition.
Advertising
Advertising
Disposing of the writ appeal preferred by S. Arputham, the court said, “In our considered opinion, this is a matter where the appellant being a senior citizen, if possible and permissible, can claim certain benefits under the Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Act of 2007.
“Otherwise, the appellant could attempt a mediation or settlement…If the appellant approaches either the competent authority under the 2007 Act or files a civil suit, the matter can be mediated [on] and settled under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”
Representing the port trust, its counsel Haja Mohideen Gisthi told the court that the octogenarian’s son had named his wife as the nominee and his mother as an alternative nominee who would be entitled to receive the benefits only if the nominee was unavailable.
The employee had died in an accident on June 28, 2018, and since then, the mother has been filing multiple cases in the court, seeking a share of her son’s terminal benefits.
