S Prema @ Bharathi Vs the Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer

S PREMA @ BHARATHI, W/O. LATE S. RAJENDRA PRASAD, AGED 56 YEARS, OCC. DEPENDENT, R/O. D.NO.6-18-53-205, VARADARAJA NAGAR, KT ROAD, TIRUPATI TOWN AND POST, TIRUPATI URBAN MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, M/S. KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., CENTRAL OFFICE AT NO.20, ERODE ROAD, VADIVEL NAGAR, LNS KARUR-639002, TAMILNADU STATE.

¶14

THE BRANCH MANAGER, M/S. KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., D.NO.9/ 160, OPP. ZP GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, NEAR BUS STAND, PALLIPAT ROAD, NAGARI TOWN, POST AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT-517590.

¶15

THE DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER CENTRAL, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, NSTI CAMPUS, SHRAMEV JAYATE BHAVAN, VIDYANAGAR, SHIVAM ROAD, HYDERABAD-500007.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 0/O. THE DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR

¶17

2

¶18

COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), NSTI CAMPUS, SHRAMEV JAYATE BHAVAN, VIDYANAGAR, SHIVAM ROAD, HYDERABAD-500007.

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3 and 4 respondents for not settling the gratuity amount of late S. Rajendra Prasad, Ex-Sub Staff of the 2nd respondent bank in favor of the petitioner herein as per law is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional against the principles of natural justice, besides violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to settle the gratuity amount of late S. Rajendra Prasad in favour of the petitioner without insisting the petitioner to produce succession (legal heir) certificate from the competent Civil Court and pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to settle the gratuity amount of the deceased S. Rajendra Prasad in favour of the petitioner forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition, and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.S VARADARAJULU CHETTY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.G V S GANESH

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

3

¶29

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶30

W.P.No.26944 of 2023

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the Respondents in not settling the gratuity amount of the husband of the Petitioner late S.Rajendra Prasad in favour of the Petitioner as illegal and arbitrary.

¶33

The petitioner is the wife of the deceased S.Rajendra Prasad, who worked in the Respondent-Bank and died on 18.06.2022, leaving behind the Petitioner and only son S.R. Sai Vignesh. The Petitioner submitted representation to the Respondent-Bank for settlement of gratuity on 31.11.2022. However, without responding to the letter of the Petitioner, a notice was issued by Respondent No.4 on 20.03.2023 calling upon the Petitioner to produce the Succession Certificate for release of gratuity amount of the deceased S. Rajendra Prasad. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

¶34

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that a Family Member Certificate was issued by the Tahasildar, Tirupati Urban Mandal, which shows that the Petitioner is the wife and S.R. Sai

¶35

4

¶36

Vignesh is son and there is no other reason to deny the Petitioner the gratuity amounts.

¶37

Learned counsel for the Respondent-Bank Sri G.V.S.Ganesh would submit that there is a difference in the name of the Petitioner in the Service Records of S.Rajendra Prasad as two names were shown i.e. Prema and Bharati and in that context, the Respondent-Bank had deposited the entire gratuity payable to late S.Rajendra Prasad before the Controlling Authority under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It was in that context, Respondent No.4 had issued a letter dated 20.03.2023 calling upon the Petitioner for submission of the Succession Certificate.

¶38

In the light of the submissions made, the writ petition is disposed of with following directions:

¶39

(i) The Petitioner shall approach Respondent No.4 with requisite proof of marriage and that the Petitioner is the only wife of deceased S. Rajendra Prasad as expeditiously as possible.

¶40

(ii) On receipt of the necessary documents from the Petitioner, the Controlling Authority shall pass appropriate orders thereon

¶41

5

¶42

with regard to the entitlement of the Petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter.

¶43

(iii)No order as to costs.

¶44

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.

¶45

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J