AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Jyothimani, J.—The Petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 7713 of 2010 is the father of the deceased G. Hemalatha, who has worked in Ayya
Nadar Janakiammal Polytechnic College, Chinnakamanpatti, Sivakasi. While in service, she died on 28.04.2009. It is stated by the father of the
said G. Hemalatha that she was married to one Prabhakaran in the year 1989 and after, 1994, his daughter and Prabhakaran were not living
together. It is the case of the Petitioner that the seventh Respondent, who has nothing to do with his daughter, was only helping the family and
according to the Petitioner, the seventh Respondent is fraudulently claiming himself as the husband of the Petitioner''s daughter G. Hemalatha
stating that she has married the seventh Respondent in the year 1995 and that fact is denied by the Petitioner.
On the other hand, the seventh Respondent in the said Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No. 7713 of 2010 has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.
9062 of 2009 for a direction to disburse the provident fund, death -cum-retirement gratuity, commuted value pension and other monetary benefits
due in respect of the deceased G. Hemalatha, who worked as a Senior Lecturer in Mathematics in the above said College, contending that he has
married the said G. Hemalatha in the year 1995 and they were living together till the date of her death and also stating that the said G. Hemalatha
has nominated the Petitioner as a nominee in respect of the right to receive the retirement benefits.
The father of the said G. Hemalatha, who is the Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 7713 of 2010, has also filed another Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)
No. 12430 of 2009, for a direction against the College, wherein his daughter was working, to consider the representation dated 21.11.2009, by
which, he has requested the College to grant some more time for producing certain records called for by the Principal of the College in the
communication dated 11.11.2009 including Death Certificate, Legal Heir Certificate and application forms.
Therefore, on the facts of the case narrated above, it is seen that while the father, the Petitioner in W.P.(MD)Nos. 7713 of 2010 and 12430 of
2009, has denied his daughter''s marriage with the seventh Respondent in W.P.(MD) No. 7713 of 2010, the seventh Respondent, who filed W.P.
(MD) No. 9062 of 2009, relies upon the nomination given by the deceased G. Hemalatha in his favour to substantiate his contention that he is
legally wedded husband of the deceased G. Hemalatha. The fact remains that the deceased G. Hemalatha was married to one Prabhakaran in the
year 1989 and that marriage subsists even as on date and it is not known as to whether the said Prabhakaran is living or not, even though it is
stated that from 1994 onwards, the said Hemalatha was not living with Prabhakaran. In this context, as correctly submitted by Mr. M. Mariappan,
Learned Counsel appearing for the College that when there is a succession dispute, that has to be resolved only by appreciation of evidence and as
per the provisions of the Succession Act, which requires the parties to prove their right and not by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to find out the factual
assertions as to the existence of a fact or non-existence of fact, which is the eminent domain of the competent civil Court.
In such view of the matter, looking into any angle, this Court cannot grant the relief to any of the Petitioners. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions fail
and are dismissed with a direction to the parties to approach the appropriate forum proving their right and thereafter, approach the College for
release of the fund, in which event, it is for the College to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs.
It is to be noted that in W.P.(MD) No. 9062 of 2009, the Employees'' Provident Fund Organization has been made as the second Respondent.
Inasmuch as the first Respondent College is not covered under the Employees'' Provident Fund Organization, the second Respondent is not a
proper and necessary party.