Dismissed

Doppalapudi Vajramma v. The Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC25 Oct 2013WP/4055/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the Bar Council's decision to pay death benefits to the nominated sister-in-law of a deceased advocate was dismissed. The court upheld payment to the nominee as obligated under the Act, treating disputes over distribution as civil matters.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; the Bar Council is not restrained from paying the death benefit to the nominee; petitioners are granted liberty to approach the civil court.

Doppalapudi Vajramma Vs The Bar Council of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.4055 of 2011

¶2

Dated 2 5 th October, 2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

Doppalapudi Vajramma and others

¶5

…Petitioners And

¶6

The Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary, High Court Premises, Hyderabad and another

¶7

Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana

¶9

Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri G.M.Mohiuddin

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not paying the death benefits to the petitioners consequent upon the death of the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

I have heard Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri G.M.Mohiuddin, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1.

¶14

Since no notice has been served on respondent No.2, no one appeared for her.

¶15

One Mr.Devadas was an advocate enrolled with respondent No.1 and was practicing at Ponnur, Guntur District. He died on 08.12.2010. During his lifetime, the said Devadas (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) enrolled himself as a member of the Advocates Welfare Fund under the Andhra Pradesh Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’). At the time of the death of the deceased, the Act provided for payment of Rs.2,00,000/- as death benefit. Such

¶16

payment shall be made to the nominee or where there is no nominee, to the dependants of the deceased. Respondent No.2, who is the sister-in-law of the deceased advocate, was nominated by the latter at the time of his enrolment under the Advocates’ Welfare Fund scheme. Therefore, on the death of the deceased, respondent No.2 has applied to respondent No.1 for payment of the death benefit. Apprehending that respondent No.1 may pay the amount to respondent No.2, the petitioners filed this writ petition.

¶17

On coming to know about the pendency of the writ petition, respondent No.1 has deferred the decision on the application of respondent No.2 till the disposal of the writ petition.

¶18

At the hearing, Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that as the petitioners are the wife and children of the deceased advocate, they alone are entitled to receive the death benefits under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

¶19

Sri G.M.Mohiuddin, learned counsel for respondent No.1, however, stated that under Section 16(2) of the Act, the Welfare Fund Committee shall pay the welfare fund amount on the death of the member to the nominee and that only in the absence of such nominee, the same is payable to the dependants of the deceased advocate.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioners has not disputed this position in law. He has, however, stated that a nominee is entitled to receive the money and he/she shall distribute the money so distributed to the persons who are legally entitled to such money.

¶21

There is absolutely no quarrel on this submission of the learned counsel. However, in view of the undisputed fact that the deceased advocate has nominated respondent No.2, the Welfare Fund Committee of respondent No.1 has no option other than paying money to respondent No.2. It is the duty and obligation of respondent No.2 to distribute the same to the persons who are legally entitled to receive the said money. If respondent No.2 does not intend to pay the money

¶22

to the petitioners, that would give rise to a civil dispute which can be adjudicated by a competent civil Court.

¶23

In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interdict respondent No.1 from paying the money to respondent No.2 in terms of the nomination made by the deceased advocate.

¶24

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent civil Court seeking appropriate reliefs, including a direction to respondent No.2 to deposit the amounts that may be received by her in the civil Court pending disposal of the suit.

¶25

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.5012 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶26

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶27

25^th October, 2013 VGB

Doppalapudi Vajramma v. The Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Doppalapudi Vajramma v. The Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh

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

Mohd. Mazheruddin s/o Mohd. Zahooruddin Vs Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

Blessmen Welfare Out-Sourcing Society, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

N.Srinivas Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Damacherla Purnanand , Purnaiah, Vs Damacherla Srujana

Smt. Junjuru Varalakshmi, Vs The District Collect

Matampalli Sri Rama Sarma Vs Maddela Koteswara rAo