The High Court directed respondents to pay death monitory benefits and insurance policy amounts to the petitioner, her nominee, as her husband was deemed dead after being missing for over seven years.
Directed respondents to pay death monitory benefits and insurance policy amount to the petitioner within eight weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3383 ]
I
I i
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO: 16603 OF 2017
Between:
Mada Prameela, W/o.Late Mallesh, aged about 56 years, Occ Household, R/o. H.No.7-50, Ambedkar Colony, CCC, Naspur, RJN, Mancherial District.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndiapraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybe pleased to issue a writ order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.l to 4 in notpaying the death monitory benefits of late l/ada Mallesh(General Mazdoor, Employment Code No.2546348 in CFC of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Sriiampur, in favour of the petitioner and the action of the respondent Nos 5 and 6 in not paying the insurance policy No, 684026649 amounts of late Mada Ir/allesh to the petitioner by taking into account of the death of the husband of the petitioner i-e. [/ada Mallesh as 0'1-05-2008 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents No.1 to 4 release the death benefits of the Mada t/allesh in favour of thepetitioner witha further direction tothe
respondents No 5 and 6 to pay the insurance policy No. 684026649 amounts to the petitioner.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 20378 OF 2017 )
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to release the death benefits of late Mada tVlallesh (General Mazdoor, Employment Code No.2546348 in CFC of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Srirampur, in favour of the petitioner and direct the respondents No.5 & 6 to pay the insurance policy No.684026649 amounts of late. Mada Mallesh to the petitioner by considering the representations dated 08-03-2017, pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N. INDRASENA REODY
Gounsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI P. SRI HARSHA REODY
(sc FoR SINGARENt COLLTER]ES CO.LTD)
Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: SRI K. ARVIND KUMAR, CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL
The Court made the following: ORDER
.-" fii+ttt*:z /
THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WIUT PETITION No.16603 of Z01Z
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in not paying the death monitory benefits of Mada Mallesh (General Mazdoor, Employment Code No.2546348 n CFC of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Srirampur, in favour of the petitioner, and the action of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in not paying the amount in respect of Insurance Policy No.684026649 of Mada Mallesh to the petitioner by taking into account the date of his death as 01.05.2008, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondents to pay the death benefits and insurance policy amount of Mada Mallesh in favour of the petitioner.
2
from 01.05.2008. Thepetitionerand her familv members searched for him, but theycould not trace him. Therefore, they have given wide publicity by affixingwall posters and distributing pamphlets and also issueda publication in Andhra JyothiDaily Newspaper on 24.08.2008.The petitioner has fileda complaint before the I Additional |udicialFirst Class Magistrate, Mancherial, and the samewas referred to the Police, CCC, Naspur, who in turn, registereda case under the heading"Man missing" ttirle Crime No.75 of2010 on 26.06.201,0.Thoughthe police searched for MadaMallesh,they could not trace him' Therefore, the police issued a letterdated08.04.201,2 statingthat all possible efforts were madeto traceout the missingpersorybut all their efforts went fruitless andno cluescame forth till that date
J
representation dated 08.03.2017 to the SCCL requesting to pay the death benefits of her husband. It is stated that basing on the representation dated12.07.2010, the SCCL has paid gratuity and F.B.I.S. amounts and issued a letter dated 15.03.2017 stating that the husband of the petitioner was dismissed from service for absenteeism and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to death benefits as per the rules of the company.
4
08.04.20'12. Therefore, therespondents are duty boundto pay the death benefits andinsurancepolicyamounts of her husbandto the petitioner, duly taking intoconsiderationthe death of her husband as 01.05.2008.
5 Respondent No.4 filed a counter affidavitdenyingthe allegations made in the writ affidavitand stating that Employment Code No.2546348 of theMada Mallesh, as referred to by the petitioner in the writ affidavit,is incorrect; that as per the records, the Employment Code Numberof Mada Malleshis 2503648; that based on the said codenumber, the office of the Coal Mines Provident Fund has identifiedthe CMPF Account Number of Mada Mallesh as H/7/47/567and haced out his ledger card. It is further stated that the office ofthe Coal Mines Provident Fund has not been informed about the deathof Mada Mallesh and that they have also not receivedthe refund claim of Mada Mallesh from the SCCL so far.
-/
I
5
learned Standing Counsel for Coal Mines Provident Fund for respondent No.4. Perused the record
1{o15 (2) GauLT 1042
6
had worked at CHP Srirampurand he was dismissed from service w.e.f . 25.03.2010 forabsenteeism,after followingdue procedure. Subsequently, thepetitioner approached the General Manager, Srirampur Area and submittedan applicationdated 12.07.2070 stating that her husbandMada Mallesh disappeared from 01.05.2008 onwards and acase was also filed before the police, CCC, Naspur, who in turn,had registereda case under the head "man missing" vide FIR No.75/2010dated26.06.2010, and therefore, requested to settle the terminalbenefitstreatingher husband as missing.
-",
it
7
Rs.6,239.40 paise were paid to the petitioner, whose name was recorded as wife in the company records. It is further stated that the amount payable towards accumulated CMpF was not settled by the Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines provident Fund, Ramagundam, for want of declaration as Legal Heir of Mada Mallesh by the Court of Law.
Consideration:
8
General Manager, SCCL, Srirampur, to settlethe gratuityand other amounts pertaining to her husband. Thereafter,she submitted another representation dated 12.07.20L0 seeking compassionate appointment. However, the authorities of SCCL have paid only gratuity and FBIS amounts to the petitioner, but the death benefits and insurance policy amount were not paid to
her.
9
the request of the petitioner and paid the death benefits as well as insurance policy amount. Even as per the written instructions of the DGM (Personnel), SCCL, placed on record, gatuity and FBIS amounts were paid to the petitioner.
'?;13scc onlineAP81s
l0
were initiated against the husband ofthe petitioner therein after his disappearance and hewas removedfrom service.The wife of the driver filed a suitzride O.S.No.267 of2006 for a declaration that her husband shall be deemedto have been dead' The Civil Court, eventually, allowed the suitthrough judgment anddecree dated 11.07.2006.
(i) The leamed Single Judge of this Courtheldthat once a legal fiction is employed, it should runits full course. Ipso facto, as the workman was deemed to have beendeadon the date of his disappearance, the disciplinary proceedingsare deemedto have been initiated against the dead Person.Those proceedings area nullity. A fortiori, the workman is deemed tohave died in hamess, since by the date of his presumptive death, theworkman was not removed from service
(ii) By referring to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court n Chief Engineel APSEB a. K. Naga Hema3, the leamed Single )udge held that the husband of the petitioner therein shall be treated to have died in harness and accordingly,
'rsgo(r) aLo:oq(os)
ll
€
set aside the order impugned therein and directed the respondent Corporation to pay the balance of terminal benefits to the petitioner treating the workman to have died in harness.
The above judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case, as the facts in both the cases are similar.
Conclusion:
1.6. In the light of the above discussiory the ratio laid down in the above judgments and also in view of the fact that the name of the petitioner is recorded as wife of Mada Mallesh in the records of the SCCL, and further gratuity and FBIS amounts of Mada AS Mallesh were already paid to the petitioner treating her nominee of the said Mada Mallesh, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no impediment for the respondents to pay the death benefits and insurance policy amount of Mada Mallesh to the petitioner.
17 . Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.1 to 4 to pay the death monitory benefits of late Mada Mallesh to the petitioner. Respondent Nos.S and 6 are also
t2
,
directed to pay the insurance amount of Mada Mallesh aide Policy
No.684026649 to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any , shall stand
closed.
SD/-N. SRIH/RI ASSISTANTREGYMR
//TRUECOPY//
SECTIONOFFICER
BN
GJPK
HIGH COURT
DATED:1311212023
ORDER
WP.No.16603 of 2017
1 t{E STAIC:
( \t.
(J [ 5 J;:i ? J1\ t,) \ :l
/
* Dr..r:,r, "
DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
., cxfuA w -*(,t flf'}4"
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to death benefits and insurance policy amounts when the employee has been missing for over seven years under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Whether dismissal proceedings against an employee deemed dead in harness are a nullity.
Whether the High Court should direct the respondents to pay death monitory benefits and insurance amounts to the nominee.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bandita Sarkar a. State of AssamFollowed¶49
Bandita Sarkar a. State of Assam
Inilira K. zt. Union of IndiaRelied on¶69
Inilira K. zt. Union of India (O.P No.18590 of 1999 (K))
Smt. K.Lakshmi o. The A.p.S.R.T.CFollowed¶70
Smt. K.Lakshmi o. The A.p.S.R.T.C
Chief Engineel APSEB a. K. Naga Hema3Followed¶75
Chief Engineel APSEB a. K. Naga Hema3
Mada Prameela
Chairmen and Managing Director, Singareni Collieries Company Limited
The General Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Limited
The Personal Officer, Singareni Collieries Company Limited
The Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund
The Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, LIC of India
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
