Disposed

Chandragiri Venkati v. Assistant Commandant/Ddo, Central Industrial Security

Telangana HC10 Sept 2024WP/41278/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired father sought a writ to stop the employer from paying death benefits to his deceased son's widow, who was accused ofabetting suicide. The court directed the employer to verify nominee details and pay benefits to the nominated parents unless an injunction is obtained.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent-1 to verify nominees and pay benefits to petitioner unless an injunction order is obtained from competent civil court.

Chandragiri Venkati Vs Assistant… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³²⁹⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY,THE TENTH^{DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKARREDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITION^{NO:41278 OF 2015}

¶7

Between:

¶8

ChandraoiriVenkati,s/o.LateChinnaiah.Age65years,OccRetiredEmployee'R/o' Dwaraka-pur Village,^{Thandur Mandal, Adilabad District}

¶9

,..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 ASSiStantCommandanuDDo,CentrallndustrialSecurity,Force,UnitHTPP Kasimpur, Aligadh^{District, UttarPradesh.}

¶12

¶13

The Tahsildar, Tandur^{tt/andal, Tandur,Adilabad District,}

¶14

J The Sub lnspector of^{Police, Rama Krishnapur Police,Station'Mandamarri} Mandal, Adilabad^District.

¶15

Smt. Raiitha, Wo. Wo.^{Late Chandragiri Srinivas, Age 28.years' Age 28.years'R/oGanga}

¶16

4 Smt. Raiitha, Wo. Wo.^{Late Chandragiri Srinivas, Age 28.years' Age 28.years'} 6;6;i,',C;,#iiisnnipui,^{Mandaimarri Mandal,AdilabadDistrict'}

¶17

,..RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Arlicle^{226 of the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filed therewith, the HighCourt may be.p.lea.sed} to lssue a writ, Order^{or direction more particularlyone in the nature ot wrlloT} Mandamus direct^{the 1st Respondent to not to issue RMs final Payment of} p.lit[i". son deceased^{ChandragiriSrinivas to the 4th Respondentand} consequently direct^{the r..spondent- No.1 to pay the RtvlS Final Paymentsof} deceased Chandragiri^{Srinivas to the petitioner}

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF 20'15^{(WPMP.NO: 53287OF2015)}

¶20

PetitionunderSectionl5,lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,th; HighCourt maybe pleased direct} the 1st respondent^{not to pay any amountsof deceased ChandragiriSrinivas} petitioner's son RIrilS Final^{payment fromthe 1st respondent}

¶21

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAVI KUMAR VADLAKONDA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.f : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE

¶25

Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent NO.4: --

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

!, ,.1

¶29

¶30

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY} WRIT PETITIO^{N No.41278 of 2015}

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This Writ Petition^{isfiled seekingadirectionto} respondent^{No. 1 not to issue RMSFinalPaymentsof petitioner's} deceased son^{Chandragiri Srinivas to respondentNo'4 and} consequently^{direct respondentNo 1 to payRMS final payment} to the^{petitioner and pass appropriateorders'}

¶33

Petitioner^{claims to be the fatherof one Chandragiri} Srinivas^{(hereinafter referred to as "the deceased")' The caseof} the^{petitioner is that his son's marriage was performedwith} respondent^{No'4 on 13'02'2015 and in view of the harassment} metedoutinthehandsofrespondentNo.4,thepetitioner,Sson Committedsuicideon02.04.2015bystatingthereasonsfor committing^{suicide in the suicide note' It is also the case of the} petitioner that^{after the death of his son' he made a complaint} against respondent^{No'4 and actingon the said complaint' a} case in^{CrimeNo 44 of 2015 was registeredagainst respondent} No.4 for^{the alleged offenceunder Section 306 read with Section} 34 of the^{IndianPenal Code' It is the furthercase of the} 1S claiming the^retirement petitioner that^{resPondentNo'4} It bsI efits taking^{advantage of the death of the petitioner'sson}

¶34

¶35

CVBR,J up^r l2?8 2015

¶36

¶37

is the further case of the petitioner that his son furnished the names of the petitioner and his wife (mother of the deceased) as nominees in the service register to receive the service benefits in terms of the service regulations of respondent No.1. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking a direction to respondent No.1 not to release any terminal benefrts/death benefits to respondent No.4, who is accused in the aforesaid crime.

¶38

This Writ Petition is pending on the frle of this Court since 9 years. Respondent No.4 has not fi1ed any counter afhdavit.

¶39

The case of the petitioner is that his son, in his service register, has nominated his parents i.e., the petitioner herein and his wife (mother of deceased) for receiving his service benefits/death benefits/terminal benefrts. It is settled larv that the nominees are entitled to receive the terminal benefits of the deceased employee and if any, third person or any other legal heirs have right to claim the death benefits/ serwice benefits of the deceasecl employee, they are having right to approach the competent Court for obtaining the necessary Succession Certificate and after obtaining such a certificate, they are entitled to ciaim their share in the service benefits in terms of the service regulations. Therefore, this Court deems it

CVBR,J wp_4127t_2015

appropriate^{to dispose of the Writ Petition directingrespondent} No.l to examine^{the servjce register of the petitioner and if the} name of the^{petitioner and his wife are shown as nomineesfor} the terminal^{benefitsof the deceased} Chandragiri recelvrng is directed^toact strictly in Srinivas, respondent^No.1 accordance^{with its servrce} ru1es for^releasing the service benefits.^{RespondentNo i is furtherdirected to issue notice to} respondent^{No.4 before releasingthe terminal benefitsto the} peti.tioner^{and pass approPriate orders in accordance withlaw'} In the event,^{if respondentNo'4 obtains any injunctionorder} frorn the coinpetent^{Civii Court for not releasing the terminal} benefits in^{favour of the petitioner,respondentNo'1 is directed} nottoreleasetheterminalbenelttsaslongaStheSaidorderiS in force.

¶45

With the above^{observations,the writ petition is disposed}

¶46

of. There shall^{be no orderas to costs'}

¶47

Pending miscellaneous^{applications'ifany' shall stand}

¶48

To,

¶49

closed

¶50

SD/- P. CH.^{NAGABHUSFYAMBA} ASSISTANT K;'PTRAR sEcrloN &ptcen

¶51

//TRUE^COPY//

¶52

Assistant^{CommandanUDDO' Central lndustrialSecurity' Force' Unit HTPP}

¶53

iirilrpri,^{Atigadh District, Uttar Pradesh'}

¶54

The Tahsildar,^{Tandur Mandal' Tandur' Adilabad District'}

¶55

The Sub^{lnspectorof Police, Rama Krishnapur Police' Station' Mandamani} Mandal, Adilabad^District

¶56

One CC to^{SRIRAVIKUMARVADLAKONDA Advocate [OPUC]}

¶57

One CC to^{Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor Generalof lndia [OPUC]}

¶58

Two CCs to^{GP for Revenue, High Courtfor the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶59

Two CCs^{to GP for Home,High Courtfor the State of Telanganaat} Hydbrabad. [OUT]

¶60

Two^{CD CoPies}

KKS

I !

HIGH COURT

DATED:1010912024

ORDER

o (r 1i-[ qr4 16:
6
7)
0 'i !:[ 7t124
o
))
'."ti r c[! ) ,

¶67

WP.No.41278 ot 2015

¶68

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Chandragiri Venkati v. Assistant Commandant/Ddo, Central Industrial Security

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandragiri Venkati v. Assistant Commandant/Ddo, Central Industrial Security

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

S.K. Hussain Vs State of Telangana

H.K.Adnan Vs Union of India, represented by its Secretary

M/s. Lakshmi and Company, Vs The District Collector and District Magistrate

Smt. R. Vijaya Lamxi Vs The State of Telangana

Nadipelli Naveen Kumar Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Syed Minaaz Vs The Union of India