Dismissed

Kanchumarthi Sarojini Devi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Dec 2020WP/24020/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Supreme Court directed the Deputy Director of Social Welfare to settle the terminal benefits of a deceased government employee within one month by acting on a previous letter from the Director of Social Welfare, without adjudicating other contentions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.3 to act upon the letter dated 19.11.2019 to settle the petitioners' claim within one month.

Kanchumarthi Sarojini Devi Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.24020 of 2020

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶4

“….to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not releasing the retirement benefits of late Kanchumarti Krishnarao such as pension, provident fund and other service benefits which the petitioners are entitled is contrary to law, unjust and pass such other order or orders……”

¶5

Petitioner No.1 is the second wife of deceased Kanchumarti Krishnarao and the other petitioners are their son and daughters respectively. Petitioner No.1 retired from the employment as a Teacher. The husband of Petitioner No.1 viz., Krishnarao worked as a Warden in the Social Welfare Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. He died on 03.06.1995 at Gajapathinagaram. Though the petitioners are only his legal heirs, but for one reason or the other, the respondents did not settle the terminal benefits of late Krishnarao. When an application was made in Spandana programme and on repeated requests, there was a movement in the proceedings and finally, the Director of Social Welfare – respondent No.2, addressed a letter, dated 19.11.2019, to the Deputy Director (Social Welfare) – respondent No.3, with the following request:

¶6

“Therefore, the Deputy Director (SW), East Godavari is requested to furnish detailed report in the matter and send present stage and action taken on grievance petition filed by Smt.A.M.Sarojini Devi second wife of Sri Late K.Krishna Rao, HWO (expired), East Godavari District to this office within (3) days for taking further necessary action in the matter.”

¶7

Despite the said letter with the above request, respondent No.3 did not take any action. Such inaction on the part of respondent No.3 is now questioned before this Court by filing this writ petition seeking release of the terminal benefits of Krishnarao, who was the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 5.

¶8

¶9

MSM,J W.P.No.24020 of 2020

¶10

During the hearing, Sri B.Venkata Ratnam, learned counsel for the petitioners, has requested this Court for a limited prayer to issue a direction to respondent No.3 to act upon the letter, dated 19.11.2019, addressed by respondent No.2 in a time bound manner.

¶11

Learned Government Pleader for Services III appearing for the respondents has not objected to the above request of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶12

As seen from the material on record, undisputedly, Krishnarao died on 03.06.1995 while he was in service, working as a Warden in the Social Welfare Department. Almost 25 years elapsed from the date of death of Krishnarao and though the petitioners, being his legal heirs, approached the respondents to settle the terminal benefits of Krishna Rao, having no financial assistance, the respondents, successfully, did not take any action. However, finally, on the application submitted by the petitioners in Spandana programme and on repeated requests, a letter, dated 19.11.2019, was addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 to send detailed report for taking action on the grievance of the petitioners. Though more than one year is elapsed, respondent No.3 did not respond to the request in the letter addressed by respondent No.2. Such inaction on the part of respondent No.3 is deprecated since such an attitude deprived the petitioners to enjoy the terminal benefits of Krishnarao, if they are entitled to. Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and as learned Government Pleader for Services III appearing for the respondents did not object the same, no further adjudication is necessary in this writ petition and it will suffice to direct respondent No.3 to act upon the letter, 19.11.2020, addressed by respondent No.2 to settle the claim of the petitioners.

¶13

¶14

MSM,J W.P.No.24020 of 2020

¶15

Hence, this Writ Petition is disposed of, with a direction to respondent No.3 to settle the claim of the petitioners by taking into consideration the letter, 19.11.2020, addressed by respondent No.2 within a period of one month from today, without touching the other contentions and leaving it open to the petitioners to raise those contentions, if necessary, in any subsequent proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

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

¶17

_____________________________ M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J

¶18

23^rd December, 2020 GHN

¶19

¶20

MSM,J W.P.No.24020 of 2020

Kanchumarthi Sarojini Devi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchumarthi Sarojini Devi v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C. Venkatesh Babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

CherukuruBabavalli, Vs The Regional Director-cum-Appellate Commissioner of Municipal Administration

Yettapu Padmavathamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chunduru Prasanna Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Ramana Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kolli Ravi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh