PATTU Vs. THILAGAVATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.K.Thiruvalluvan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.R.Mahesh, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 to 5.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai dated 4.11.2016 in O.A.No.310/00860 of 2015 preferred by the first respondent.

(3.) The petitioner herein claims to be the second wife of deceased Railway employee E.Krishnan. E.Krishnan was working as Khalasi-I in the Southern Railway and he expired on 20.9.2011. On the death of the deceased Railway employee E.Krishnan, the Railways were reluctant to disburse the amount to the first respondent who was the first wife, as according to the Southern Railways, the present petitioner Pattu was entitled to the terminal benefits. This was so as in the family composition, the name of 'Pattu' was entered as wife. Being aggrieved by the non-disbursal of terminal benefits to her, the first respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.349 of 2011 before the District Munsif Court, Thirupathur against the present petitioner and the Railways for declaration that she is entitled to the terminal benefits of the deceased E.Krishnan. The case was referred to the Lok Adalat, where a compromise decree was passed to the effect that the present first respondent is entitled to entire pension and that the present petitioner and the first respondent are entitled to equal share in the Gratuity, Provident Fund and other benefits and that the son of the present petitioner is allowed to make an application for compassionate appointment.