Dismissed

Smt. K. Uma Devi, v. The Food Corporation of India, Regional Office

Telangana HC27 Apr 2010WP/27165/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition filed by the petitioner, a widow, seeking direction to the respondents to pay terminal benefits of her late husband. Pending a civil suit by a claiming sister, the court allowed payment to the petitioner conditions on an indemnity bond.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to pay balance terminal benefits to the petitioner within four weeks, conditioned on execution of an indemnity bond.

Smt. K. Uma Devi, Vs The Food Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶2

W.P.No.27165 of 2007

¶3

ORAL ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.ESTT.39-7/2007-PC dated 8.8.2007 issued by first respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to settle and pay all the terminal benefits i.e. gratuity, provident fund etc., lying to the credit of late K.Kanna Babu in favour of petitioner.

¶5

It appears, petitioner is the wife of late K.Kanna Babu, who worked in the respondent-Corporation in various capacities for 30 years and died in harness on 25.9.2006 while working as Manager (QC). According to the petitioner, she has no children out of the wedlock with K.Kanna Babu and she is the only legal heir of her late husband. Though her husband died on 25.9.2006, the respondent Corporation failed to settle his terminal benefits till date. However, she received a communication dated 8.8.2007 stating that the sister of her late husband namely Mrs.K.Vijaya Valli is also claiming the said amounts.

¶6

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that Mrs.K.Vijaya Valli, who is the sister of petitioner’s husband filed suit in O.S.No.471 of 2007 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking to declare that she is the class-II heir and entitled for 50% of the terminal benefits of her brother and the said suit is pending.

¶7

There is no dispute as to the status of the petitioner that she is the wife of late K.Kanna Babu. The only dispute is that the name of third respondent was shown as family member in the service record of K.Kanna Babu since she was spinster, therefore she has claimed the terminal benefits of her late brother as class-II heir. According to the

¶8

learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner being class-I heir, she alone is entitled for the death/retiral benefits of her late husband. This is the subject matter of the suit pending before the competent Civil Court and unless the said suit is decided, nothing can be said as to how the third respondent is entitled, however, there is every likelihood that the suit takes some more time and the petitioner would be denied of the amounts pending with first respondent.

¶9

Under those circumstances, since there is no dispute as to the status of the petitioner, it is just and proper to permit the petitioner to withdraw all the retiral benefits subject to executing an indemnity bond in favour of the first respondent that in case the third respondent succeeds in the suit, petitioner shall deposit the amounts as required by the decree without fail. The third respondent also expressed no objection for such an arrangement being made.

¶10

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to pay the balance terminal benefits relating to late K.Kanna Babu to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order subject to the condition petitioner executes an indemnity bond to the extent of amounts received by her. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

C.V.RAMULU, J

¶12

Date: 27.4.2010 DA

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶14

W.P.No.27165 of 2007

¶15

27.4.2010

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.27165 of 2007

¶18

Date: 27^th April, 2010

¶19

Between: Smt.K.Uma Devi .. Petitioner And The Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, HACA Bhavan, Hyderabad, rep. by its General Manager & others.

¶20

.. Respondents

Smt. K. Uma Devi, v. The Food Corporation of India, Regional Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. K. Uma Devi, v. The Food Corporation of India, Regional Office

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

Hari Shankar S/o Subodh Kishan Vs Sri Rajeshwar Tiwari

Kondapalli Rajeswar Rao S/o lakshminarasimha Rao Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

Sqn.Ldr.v.Sadaanandam (Retd), Vs Union of India, rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Defence

K. Anjaneyulu Vs The Chief General Manager

Kukkanna Vs The Government of Andhra pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

Sri U. Subba Rao, Vs The Managing Director