Allowed

Smt. K. Srilaxmi v. The Chief General Manager and 6 others

Telangana HC13 Jul 2022WP/14897/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by the wife and minor son of a deceased bank employee seeking death benefits and compassionate appointment, claiming entitlement over the deceased's mother. Court directed equitable distribution of benefits.

What did the court decide?

Published direction to respondents to settle all death benefits and ex-gratia amount among the petitioners and respondent No.6 in the proportion of their eligibility/entitlement within four weeks.

Smt. K. Srilaxmi Vs The Chief General… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶5

WRI]'PETITION N O:14897 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 9rt {, Srilaxmi, Wo Late lslavath Hari Krishna, aged about 28 years. Occ. Housewife arrd BSc. Computers, R/o. H.-'No: O_+2, nolO^,flo.i, Madhurapuri Colony, Almasguda, l-iyderabad-S8.'

¶8

(Petitioner No.1 c.T is amended as per c.o Dt 14togr2o21 in rA 3120211

¶9

2 Master lslavath Hari raraknath, s/o. Late rsravath Hari Krishna, aged about 8 months old, Represented by the 1S_t petitioner *ho is r,is nliriiirot'i-,,.,i, and R/o. H No 6-47 Road No.2,' Madhurapuri C"i;.t,^'At,r;;;;; Hyderabad-58.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

'1. The Chief General l/anager, Union Bank of lndia, Central Office, Mumbak, Union Bank Bhavan-23g, Vidhan Bhavan [aarg-, I,iaii;in p;i;i ti,,;;b;,'" Maharastra-400021

¶13

The DeputyGeneral Manager, Union Bank of lndia (HR) Depafiment, Regional Office, at L.E. Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Field General Manager (HR), Dept., Union Bank of lndia, Koti, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Branch Manager, Union Bank of lndia, Anandnagar Branch, near Bandlaguda, Nagoie,'l{yderabad.

¶16

Islavath Sakru, S/o. lslavqlh Boddu, aged about 55 years, Occ. TSRTC Driver, Ranigunj-r Depot, secunderibid,nyo. prJilio. sis, vishaka'r.l-ao",.r ivr rs'\u I ruvcr' Colony, Near Rijiv Giuhakatpa, ntmasguoi, R.R.'Dist :581

¶17

l?lavathi Nanku, Wo. Islavath Sakru agedabout 50 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o.^ptot No. 929, Vishaka Nagar Coto"ny, neiiiriii,j crjhak;tp;:--"-"""' Almasguda, R.R. Dist. -5U.

¶18

7 lslavathi Bala Krishna, S/o. lsli;,r,ath Sakru aged about 32 years, Occ. Business, R/o.^ptot Nc. 929, Vistraka ttigai"Colonlate"r'C4iu'C-rit"frfpr, Almasguda, R.R. Dist. -58.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

F'etition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandanrus decraring the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in processing the craims of the n:spondents 5 to 7 for the rerease of aI the service and death benefits of Late rsrirvath Hari Krishna who died due to covid.l g whire working as Branch Manage' in Union Bank of rndia, merery on the ground of mentioning their names as nomi,ees in his service book, though they are not entifled to receive any such benefits under the raw and further though it is onry the petitioners who are being widow and minor son of Late Hari Krishna, they are entired to be paid a[ the service and death benefits of Late Hari Krishna, as iflegar, unraMur, contrary to ravi and con:;equentry direct the respondents 'r to 4 to consider onry the craim of the petitioners for the rerease of service dnd death benefits of Late Hari Krishna which includes the consideration of the case of the 1st petitioner for compassionate appointment in the Bank

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶22

Petition under section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support"of the petition, the High court may be preased to grant interim order not to rerease the service and death benefits of Late rsravath Hari Krishna irr favour of the respondents s to 7 merery on the ground that their names are being mentioned as nominees in the service book of Late Hari Krishna, who died with covrD-19 whire working as Branch Manager in Union Bank of rndia, pending disposal of main Writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner : SRI. M DAMODAR REDDY

¶24

Counsel f,rr the Resoondont Nos. I to 4 : SRI K LAKSHMI NARASIMHA (sc FoR AB)

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 : NONE APPEARED

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶28

W.P.NO. L4897 0F 2o2L

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This Writ Petition has been hled by the wife and sons of the deceased employee Sri.Late lslavath Hari Krishna, who died due to Covid- 19 u,hile r,,,orking as Branch Manager in Union Bank of India. The petitioner No.1 has applied for compassionate appointment and also requested the respondents for other death benefits of the deceased employee.

¶31

This Court vide orders dated i4.O9.202 1 in I.A.No.02 of 2O2l had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner No. 1 for compassionate appointment as per rules in force.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner No.1 has been offered compassionate appointment by the respondents.

¶33

There was further direction to consider the claims of the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and respondent No.6 for release of ex-gratia amount which was awarded to deceased employee who died due to Covid- 19 and particularly with regard to respondent No.6, who is the mother ol the deceased.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed copy of the letter dated 2O.O5.2O22, issued by the Regional Office, Union

¶35

Bank of lndia, confirmin€] that thc mother, u,ho is also class-l lcgal heir, is entitled ro cx-gralia amount.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the three Class-l heirs, petitioner Nos. I and 2 and rcspondent No.6, are entitled to ex-gratia and therefore, respondent No.6 is also entitled to I /3rd of the ex-gratia.

¶37

Learned counsel representing for the respondent Nos.S to

¶38

7 is present and confirms the same.

¶39

In'view of the above, this Court deems it fit and proper to issue a direction to the respondents to settle all the death benefits of the deceased employee amongst the petitioners and respondent No.6 in the proportion of their eligibitity/ entitlement within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this brder.

¶40

Accordingly, this Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶42

To,

¶43

SD/-M.MANJULA DEPUry REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII V SECTION OFFICER

¶44

I . Ttre Chief General Manager,..Union Bank of lndia, Central Office, Mumbak, , . Mrtharastra400021 U'ion Bank Bhavan_239,-Vianari eniv;; niiibi,'ii""iri-" p;i;i thffi;;,

¶45

Tl-re Deputy General lvlanager. Union Bank of lndia (HR) Department, R<:gionat Office at L.B. Na[ar, HVOeiaOaj.^{"' "'"'"}

¶46

¶47

The Field General Manager (HR), Dept., Union Bank of lndia, Koti, Hyderabad-

¶48

The Branch Manager, Union Bank of lndia, Anandnagar Branch, near Bandlaguda, Nagole, Hyderabad.

¶49

One CC to SRl. M DAMODAR REDD,, Advocate. tOpUCl 6. One CC to SRl. K LAKSHMI NARASTMHA (SC FOR AB), Advocate.topuc] 7. Two CD Copies

¶50

One Spare Copy

SB .\lSB

I t

HIGH COURT

DATE:D:1310712022

ii,.e SrAr
o'
'(
Q
3 0 6 SEP 2077
C

¶56

ORDER

¶57

WP.No.14897 of 2O21

¶58

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o5*

Smt. K. Srilaxmi v. The Chief General Manager and 6 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. K. Srilaxmi v. The Chief General Manager and 6 others

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

Uckoo Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Banoth Raja and another Vs The District Collector and 4 others

R. Sunitha Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Gurram Rajitha Devi Vs The Commissioner and Director of Collegiate Education

G. Vivekananda Vs The State of Telangna And 3 Others

T. Venkateswara Rao Vs Telangana State Power Generation Corporation