Partly allowed

Bakka Anjali Kumari v. D.Venkateswara Rao

Telangana HC8 Mar 2013CRP/1299/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an impugned order by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour that dismissively rejected a petition for withdrawal of workmen compensation kept in fixed deposit. The Court directed the authority to reconsider the petition, noting it overlooked the need for funds for minor children’s education.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; property for reconsideration of withdrawal application within 4 weeks; no costs.

Bakka Anjali Kumari Vs D.Venkateswara Rao — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1299 OF 2013

¶3

Dated: 26.04.2013

¶4

Between:
Bakka Anjali Kumari and 5 others	..	Petitioners
And
D.Venkateswara Rao and another	..	Respondents

¶5

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1299 OF 2013

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

This revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Gudivada, dated 12.10.2012 wherein the petitioner’s request for withdrawal of Rs.1,00,000/- which is kept in deposit was rejected.

¶9

As could be seen from the material available on record, the 1^st petitioner’s husband by name Vishnuvardhan Rao died and after due enquiry, a sum of Rs.4,07,700/- was awarded towards compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act. Thereafter, by order dated 11.06.2012, the apportionment among the dependants was made and so far as the 1^st petitioner herein is concerned, it was held that she is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,97,700/-. Out of the said amount, Rs.97,700/was already paid to her and the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was kept in Fixed Deposit.

¶10

Subsequently the petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner for Labour seeking permission to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- which is kept in a Nationalised Bank to discharge the debts incurred by her and also to meet the needs of the school fees, books and the other needs of her minor children. The said application was dismissed by order dated 12.10.2012 and aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.

¶11

The objection raised by the Registry as to the maintainability of the civil revision petition was overruled by this Court by a detailed order passed on 08.03.2013 and thereafter, by order dated 22.03.2013,

¶12

notice was ordered to the respondents. The proceedings sheet shows that the notice has been served on the respondents and the petitioner has also filed proof of service. However the respondents did not choose to appear.

¶13

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration.

¶14

It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour has not taken into consideration the plea of the 1^st revision petitioner that she is in need of the amount kept in Fixed deposit to meet the requirements of her minor children towards school fees and etc., and that the application was erroneously dismissed only on the ground that no withdrawals are allowed for clearing the debts.

¶15

On a perusal of the impugned order, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel since apparently the Assistant Commissioner of Labour did not consider the petitioner’s plea that the amount is required for education of her minor children. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration.

¶16

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour to reconsider the request of the petitioners for withdrawal of the amount kept in the fixed deposit and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Such order shall be passed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs.

¶17

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed.

¶18

____________ G.ROHINI, J

¶19

Date: 26.04.2013 Ivd/ssp

Bakka Anjali Kumari v. D.Venkateswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bakka Anjali Kumari v. D.Venkateswara Rao

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

Velaga Nallabbai , Nagaraju, Vs Karri Nagarajamma

M/s.Gautam Bhavan Vs Smt.Sakuntala Sahu

Dr.Ramesh Kumar Vs M.Suresh Kumar

Sri Bade Narasingarao, Vs Smt.Koppisetti Anitha

M/s.Premeier Enterprises Vs Ponnada Deva Prakash

M/s.Premeier Enterprises Vs Ponnada Deva Prakash