Kotagasthi Shaik Mubarak Basha Vs the Union of India

KOTAGASTHI SHAIK MUBARAK BASHA, S/O K.S. BASHU SAB,AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO. 1-1132-16/A2, NEAR PANCHAYAT OFFICE ADAPALA STREET, KADIRI TOWN AND MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI. 110001.

¶14

THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, POSTAL DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH CIRCLE, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA. 520013.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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 order, writ, or direction, particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondents in not considering the Petitioners representation dated 21.01.2026 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioners representation dated 21.01.2026, pass appropriate orders thereon, and release all death and terminal benefits due to the deceased employee Kotagasthi Shaik Dadapeer,

¶17

2

¶18

strictly in accordance with law and within a time frame as fixed by this Honble Court, and pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶20

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 may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider and take appropriate action on the representation of the petitioner dated. 21.01.2026 and to pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.MADDILA PRASANNA KUMAR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the inaction of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s representation dated 21.01.2026 and pass appropriate orders thereon for releasing the death benefits due to the deceased employee Kotagasthi Shaik Dadapeer.

¶27

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the father of the deceased Kotagasthi Shaik Dadapeer. While Kotagasthi Shaik Dadapeer was working as GDS Assistant Branch Post Master in the Central Postal Department at Hallikera, Madakasira Mandal, unfortunately he met with an accident hit by APSRTC bus on 01.03.2025 and he died on the spot. Total family members are depending on the deceased employee and no other income earning member in the family and

¶28

3

¶29

the petitioner has approached the respondents for release of the death benefits of the deceased son. The petitioner has submitted several representations and finally on 21.01.2026. The respondents have not considered and passed any orders on the representation of the petitioner sofar. Hence, the writ petition.

¶30

Reply to the said contention, Smt I.K. Annapurna, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, has submitted that infact the petitioner is not eligible for the death benefits of his son as there are surviving wife. Further, while conducting the enquiry, the respondents have requested the petitioner to submit the family member certificate from the competent authority, but the petitioner failed to produce such certificate. Hence, the respondents could not be able to pass any orders on the representation of the petitioner as per rules.

¶31

Considering the submissions made by the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, this court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case and the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to give opportunity to the petitioner to produce all the relevant documents which are required before the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On submission of such documents, the respondents are directed to consider the representation dated 21.01.2026 along with the relevant records and pass appropriate orders based

¶32

4

¶33

on the rules and regulations within a period of one month thereafter. No order as

¶34

to costs.

¶35

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶36

_____________

¶37

D. RAMESH,J