Disposed

Smt. Thotakure Narsamma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Mar 2024WP/4440/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought a writ directing authorities to consider the petitioner's representation and legal notice regarding the affixing of her joint photograph with the respondent for family pension benefits, citing marital status and navigable rights.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 5th respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, put a notice to the 6th respondent, and pass appropriate orders within 4 weeks.

Smt. Thotakure Narsamma Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:4440 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. Thotakure Narsamma, W/o Thotakure Kistaiah, Aged about. 54 years, Occ; Household, R/o H.No-5-433/20, Hanuman Nagar. C6outuppal Town, yadadri Bhongir District, Telangana State.

¶10

.....PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Panchayath Raj and Rural

¶13

-^{Development Department, DR BR Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat,} Hyderabad.

¶14

The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Yadadri Bhongir District.

¶16

The State Audit Officer (Local Funds), Zilla Parishad Office, Yadadri Bhongir District.

¶17

The Mandal Development Officer, Mandala Piaja Parishad Office, Chotuppal Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.

¶18

Thotakure Kistaiah, S/o Late Buchaiah, Attender, O/o Mandal Praja Parishad, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District, Ryo H.No.5-352/6, Ratna Nagar, Choutuppal Town, Yadadri Bhongir District, Telangana State.

¶19

.....RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring th€ action of the respondents in not considering the petitioners representation 2210112024 along with legal notice 2310112024 tor affixing the petitioner and 6th respondent^joint photograph in the family pension of sth respondent office, is illegal, arbitrary, biased, unjust and against ihe

¶21

principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to considering the petitioners representation 2210112024 along with legal notice 2310112024 for affixing the petitioner and 6th respondent joint photograph in the family pension of 5th respondent office.

¶22

|.A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶23

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 respondents consider the petitioners representation 2210112024 along with legal notice 2310112024 for affixing the petitioner and 6th respondent joint photograph for family pension of 5th respondent office, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI G.MADHU

¶25

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : GP FOR SERVICES Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5: SRI P.KISHORE RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI J.GOVARDHAN REDDY The Court made the following ORDER

¶26

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION NO.444O OF 2024

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

With the consent of the parties, the Writ^{Petition is disposed} of at the stage of admission itself.

¶30

This writ petition is filed seeking the^{followingrelief}

¶31

'to issue o wit, order or direction,^{more particularly,one in the} nature of Wit of Mandamug declaing^{the actionofthe} respondents in not consideirlg^the Petitrcner's^{representation} dated 22.O1.2024 olortg ttith legal^{notice 23.01.2O24} for allxing the petitioner and 6'h^respondent ioint^photographin the Jamilg^pension of^{5'h respondent olficeis illegol, arbttrary,} biased, unjust and against the^{pinciplesof nalural justice and} consequentlg direct^{the respondents to ansiderthepetitioner's} representctlion dated 22.01.2024 olong^{withlegal notte} 23.O1.2O24 Jor alfixing^{the petitioner and 6h respondentjoint} photograph in llrc familg^{pensionof 5h respondentolfr.ce and. to} pass... "

¶32

Heard Sri G.Madhu, learned^{counselfor the petitioner and} learned Government Pleader^{for Servicesappearingfor respondent} Nos.l and 2, Sri P.Kishore Rao, learned^{Standing Counsel for Zllla} Parishad appearing for respondent^{Nos'3to 5 and Sri J'Govardhan} Reddy, learned counsel appearing^{for respondentNo.6.}

¶33

The case of the petitioner^{isthat her marriagewas} solernnized with^{respondent No.6 on O4.04.1983 as per the Hindu} Customs and Rituals^{and out of their wedlock, they were blessed} with one male child^{urz., T.Satyanarayana.It is the furthercase of} the petitioner^{that during the year1989,due to epilepsydisease,}

¶34

¶35

PK,J wp_4440_2024

¶36

she was involved in a hre accident, due to which, she sustained injuries and while undergoing treatment, her husband i.e., respondent No.6 concealing their marriage had illegal contact with another lady by name Jakkali Lalitha. It is the further case of the petitioner that as per Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, if the hrst wife is alive ald divorce is not obtained divorce from her, so-called second marriage is null and void. It is the further case o.f the petitioner that respondent No.6 retired on 29.02.2024 on attaining the age of superannuation and she came to know that on the instigation of his second wife, respondent No.6 affixed their joint family photograph for claiming family pension in the event of his death, depriving her legal rights.

¶37

l,earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has submitted representations dated 74 .O 1 .2024 and 22.01.2024 along with legal notice dated 23.01.2024 betore respondent No.5 requesting them to pay the terminal benefits and family pension of respondent No.6 to her and not to Jakkali Lalitha, who is the second wife of respondent No.6 and the said representation is still pending with respondent No.S for consideration. Therefore, learned counsel prayed this Court to direct respondent No.5 to dispose of the representation, dated 22.01.2024 submitted by the petitioner.

wp_4440_2024

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5 submits that respondent No.s will consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 22.O). .2024 , and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 seeks permission o[ this Court to file any objection, if any.

¶43

In view of the submissions made by the respective parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.5 to consider the representation d.ated 22.01.2024 made by the^petitioner, duly putting a notice to respondent No.6, and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a^period of^{four (4) weeks} from the date of receipt of a copy of this order^{and communicate a} copy thereof to the petitioner. There^{shailbe no order as to costs.}

¶44

Miscellaneous applications, if any,^{pending inthis writ}

¶45

petition, shall stand closed

¶46

SD/-A.V.S.PRASAD GIST ASSISTANT

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

1. lH€:"Hi1,g#{iiii"T{:ffi^{fl i:T$a:Tn:'":m*ff"8H:#:l'.}

¶51

1. 1. fttt'f*:;ffiS,"fl,tf^{HL1f )iflrJ:,.,s}i,'J8[*19...#l;Bhonsr 5. 6. Ifi';tffi^{P]tsffi :'":'r'f ;ff :::T:;::::i"ffi '::"J""'} 7. 8. 9. [l:kn:,ttrri**q,ry':'*8"u",

6 to. Two^CDCoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410312024

ORDER

WP.No.4440 of 2024

1 HE S'r4f 6
Y
q
3 J 12 |'1AR 2024 az
* DFq,r T C

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

Cq,'P

Smt. Thotakure Narsamma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Thotakure Narsamma v. The State of Telangana

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

Pokkula Rajani Kumari Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Dasharatha Banoth Vs The State of Telangana

Mekala Janaiah Vs Union of India

Sri. T. Rakesh Singh Vs The State of Telangana

D.Vijaya Kumar Vs State of Telangana

Gedam Neelima Vs The State of Telangana