Disposed¶33

Mrs.a.Bharati Devi, v. Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Aug 2025WP/20819/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ESI Act 1948; Section 52 E.S.I Act; dependant's benefits; implementation of Employees Insurance Court award in E.I.C.No.28 of 2012 (Orders dated 08.08.2017); quashing of Ex.P.6 Orders dated 16.01.2012 of Respondent No.3; writ for inaction on representations dated 17.06.2025, 11.10.2017, 25.08.2018, 29.07.2024; direction to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (Union of India and Others) to extend benefits forthwith; Nyapathy Vijay, J.; APHC W.P. No. 20819/2025; Amaravati; decided 18.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 directed to consider the Petitioners' representations and extend the E.S.I benefits forthwith; Writ Petition disposed of with no order as to costs; pending applications, if any, closed as sequel. ¶33

Mrs.a.Bharati Devi, Vs Union of India — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APHC010406732025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3460]

¶5

MONDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 20819/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

Mrs.A. Bharati Devi, and another

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

Union Of India and Others

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶16

1.P RAMABHOOPAL REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

1.V CH NAIDU

¶19

2.A RAVINDRA BABU (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶23

W.P.No.20819 of 2025

¶24

O R DE R:

¶25

The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the inaction of the Respondents on the representations of the Petitioners dated 17.06.2025, 11.10.2017 and 25.08.2018 and 29.07.2024 issued to the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶26

The Petitioners are the dependants of late A. Ramesh, who died while working under Respondent No.4. The deceased A. Ramesh was covered under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 ( for short ‘ESI Act’). The Petitioners filed E.I.C.No.28 of 2012 before the Employees Insurance Court & Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I at Hyderabad, seeking to extend the benefits under Section 52 of the E.S.I Act. The Designate Court vide Orders dated 08.08.2017 allowed the E.I.C.No.28 of 2012 and the operative portion of the said Order at paragraph No.19 reads as under:

¶27

“ ISSUE NO.4: RESULT :

¶28

In the result, the EIC No.28 of 2012 is allowed, with costs, and the Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to extend the dependant’s benefit in favour of the Petitioners as contemplated

¶29

¶30

under Section 52 of the E.S.I Act and the Orders passed by the Respondent No.3 under Ex.P.6 dated 16.01.2012 are hereby quashed as illegal”.

¶31

Though the case filed by the Petitioners was allowed, the benefits were not being extended in terms of the Order of the Court, and hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶32

Considering that the issue of extension of benefits to the Writ Petitioners was extended by the Designated Court in E.I.C.No.28 of 2012 vide Orders dated 08.08.2017, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to consider the representations of the Petitioners and extend the benefits forthwith.

¶33