Disposed

M. Anasuya, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Oct 2019WP/5893/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of a writ petition challenging the requirement to produce a succession certificate for releasing the husband's pensionary benefits. The court directed the respondents to consider an outstanding representation and pass appropriate orders within four weeks, noting prior acceptance of the petitioner's family status.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider the petitioner's pending representation and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

M. Anasuya, Vs The State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.5893 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to declare the proceedings vide ROC No.R1/163/OST/TML/2014, dated 20.02.2019 of the 3^rd respondent in insisting to produce the Succession Certificate issued by the competent Civil Court for settling the pensionery benefits of the husband of the petitioner, as illegal.

¶5

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for 1^st respondent. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the pensionary benefits of the husband of the petitioner are not being released, on the ground that succession certificate is not produced. On 20.02.2019, the respondents called upon the petitioner to produce succession certificate for releasing the pensionary benefits.

¶6

Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that funeral expenses of Rs.10,000/- were released in favour of the petitioner considering that the deceased is the husband of the petitioner. He also submits that in the service records of the deceased, the name of the petitioner was entered as the family member and the family members certificate is also on record to show that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased employee SRM Murali.

¶7

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that a representation is given to the respondents by the petitioner to

¶8

¶9

consider her case on 29.10.2018 and appropriate orders will be passed.

¶10

Recording the said submission, this court directs the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 29.10.2018 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (4) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, keeping in view the fact that funeral expenses were released in favour of the petitioner by accepting that she is the wife of the deceased employee and also the fact that the name of the petitioner was entered in the service records, as the wife of the deceased employee.

¶11

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶13

______________ T. RAJANI, J

¶14

October 16, 2019 MP

M. Anasuya, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Anasuya, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.G.Siva Shyam Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Tanuja Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Varigonda Sailaja, Spsr Nellore Dist and 12 Others Vs Rep by Its Prl Secy, Panchayat Raj, Guntur Dist and 4 Others

J.Venkata Ramudu, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Co-operative Rural Irrigation Corporation Limited

D.Padmavathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Davuluri Mastan, S/o Mastanrao Vs The State Project Director