Allowed

Smt.a.Laxml Bai, v. The Govt. of A.P.

Telangana HC29 Oct 2013WP/30843/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the rejection of the petitioner's application for a Family Member Certificate. Holding that the petitioner qualifies as a Class-II legal heir under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the Court directed the Revenue Department to re-evaluate and process the application.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement was set aside. The respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's application afresh as a legal heir and communicate the fresh decision within one week.

Smt.a.Laxml Bai, Vs The Govt. of A.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.30843 of 2013

¶2

Dated 2 9 th October, 2013

Between:

Smt.A.Laxmi Bai

…Petitioner

And

The Govt.of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri N.Vijay Kumar

¶10

Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed questioning the endorsement, dated 06.07.2013, of respondent No.2, whereby he has declined to give Family Member Certificate (FMC) to the petitioner.

¶14

The petitioner averred that she is the sister-in-law of one A.Vishwanath, S/o late Anjaiah, who was a Government employee. The petitioner alleged that he died leaving behind her and four other near relatives and that as she is entitled to receive the benefits payable to the legal heirs of the deceased employee, she has approached respondent No.2 with an application to issue FMC. That initially on 19.06.2013, respondent No.2 made an endorsement rejecting the petitioner’s application on the ground that she has not submitted the requisition certificate from the department concerned and hence, the application cannot be considered. However, subsequently, he has issued another endorsement, dated 06.07.2013, which is impugned in this writ petition, whereby respondent No.2 has rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground that as she is the

¶15

sister-in-law of the deceased, she is not considered as his legal heir.

¶16

The petitioner pleaded that being the brother’s widow of the deceased, she falls under Class-II heirs in the Schedule to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶17

From the impugned endorsement, it is evident that respondent No.2 is not disputing the relationship of the petitioner with the deceased. As rightly pleaded by the petitioner, brother’s widow of the deceased falls under Class-II heirs in the Schedule to Section 8 of the Act. Therefore, the endorsement issued by respondent No.2 is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the same is accordingly set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the application of the petitioner afresh by treating her as one of the legal heirs of the deceased, A.Vishwanath, for issue of FMC, take a fresh decision and communicate the same to the petitioner, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶19

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.38293 of 2013 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶21

29^th October, 2013 VGB

Smt.a.Laxml Bai, v. The Govt. of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.a.Laxml Bai, v. The Govt. of A.P.

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

Mr. Mohd. Zaheer Ahmed, S/o. Mr. Fathe Mohammed Vs a. P. State Wakf Board

Yaddula Hanumantha Reddy Vs Y Narasimha Reddy

Smt. Shameem Sultana, Vs The District Collector

T.Madan Mohan Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.

B. lylamma Vs The District Collector, Warangal, Warangal District.

Sri Usala Chenchurama Naidu,Poosala Chenchu Vs The Office of the District Collector