The High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous. The court held that the release of death benefits to the person recorded as the wife in service records could not be challenged in writ jurisdiction, as the dispute regarding legal wedlock was a matter of fact requiring civil adjudication.
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.
t3300 I
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION NO: 22983 OF 2017
Between:
Yama Usha Rani, D/o.Late Chinna Ramalingaiah, Aged 30years, Occ; Household, R/.Q.No.NB-1 , Rudrampur Kothagudem, Khammam District.
...,.PETITIONER
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitulion of lndiapraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue approprlate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondents releasing the death benefits and pension of deceased Ch.Ramalingaiah his employment No.02124795 as Security Guard in favour of Respondent No.4 which is illegal, unlaMul, unjust and contrary to law and against theprinciples of naturaljustice and consequently direct the respondents not to release the death benefits of deceased Y.Chinna Ramalingaiah his employment No.02124795 as security guard to the Respondent No.4 in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M.RAMESHWAR RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI J.SREENIVASA RAO
Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: -
The Court made the following ORDER
I!
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICENAGESHBHEDMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.22983of 2OL7
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filedseeking the following relief
"to issueappropiatewrit ororder, or direction more particularlgone inthe nature of ut it of mandamusdeclaring the action of respondentsreleasingthe death benefits andpensionof deceased Y.China Ramalingaiahhis emplogrnert No.O2 124795 as SecuitY Guardin fauourofrespondent No.4 u-thich r.s illegal, unlau.tfitl, unjustand contrargto law and againstthe principlesof natural justice and consequentlg direct the respondents not toreleasethedeath benefits of deceased Y.Chinna Ramalingaiah his ernPlogrnentNo. 02 124795 as secuitgguard tothe respondent No 4 ."
2
..1
not the legally wedded wife of her father, but the respondent authorities have released the terminal/death benefits in favour of respondent No.4, and therefore the action of respondent authorities is illegal and arbitrary
J
IS dismissedas 7. AccordinglY,the writPetition infructuous. No costs. Pending miscellaneousapplicatrons' L.if any,shall :!c44slgq'd' --
/ITRUECOPY'/
SECTIONOFFICER
re anganaa'i " ; if""ltt"tfli$'**d; ffi'r
sA f*A,
GMN
!!! ,r!r!t r!!! rr!F! lttBll
_ _ -
_
I
HIGH COURT
DATED:0610312025
ORDER
WP.No.22983 of 2017
k C,?' THE S ll,
J
{)
() [ ] JUr n25
.!" 4
o
isparcP.r:-?-
-:+-=E : -:i..z
DISMISSING THE W.P
AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS.
C^{c<br>Alslx
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the service record recording Respondent No.4 as the wife of the deceased employee, and the consequent release of terminal benefits to her, could be faulted in a writ petition?
Yama Usha Rani
The State of Telangana
The Managing Director, Singareni
The General Manager, Kothagudem area, Singarenl Collieries Company Ltd.
Ramalingamma
NAGESH BHEMAPAKA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
