Ms. K. Lavanya v. 1. The State of Telangana

Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana-500022. 2. The Registrar ( Administration ), High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad' Telangana-500066.

3. The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad- 50000'1 .

4. Ande Srisailam Kurma, S/o. Late. A Pentaiah, Aged-60 years, Occ; Business, Fl/o. Flat No.402, Srinidhi Residency, Gangabowli Bagh, Amberpet, Hyderabad-500013. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of lhe 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 that the in-action of the 3rd respondent in considering the representation of the petitioner daled 2410512024, seeking the grant of death benefits following the demise of her husband, Late Sri A. Manikanta, is arbitrary, illegal, and against the applicable Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and National Pension Scheme service rules and regulatrons, and in gross violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia. consequently, direct the 3rd respondent to consider the representation daled 241O5t2O24 and grant all death benefits and any other applicable entiflements that the petitioner and her minor son are legally entitled to as per the applicable Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and National Pension Scheme service rules and regulations. |.A.NO:1 OF 2025 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 to direct the 3rd respondent to conslder the representation of the petition er dt.2410512024 and release lhe provisional family pension and other immediate financial assistance to the petitioner and her minor son for their sustenance Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI B.VAMSHIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.'l : Ms. M.SHALINI, GP FOR LAW AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI K.V.RAMAN The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P'SAM KOSHY ANI) THE HONOURABLE SNT TUSTTCN NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITIO N No. 12015 of 2025 ORDER, (pet Hon'ble Sri 'lttstice I''Sum Koshl') Heard Mr.B'Vamshidhar Reddy' teamed counsel for the petitioner, Ms'M'shalini' learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Mr'K'V'Raman' leamed counsel appearlng for respondent Nos'2 & 3' Perused the record' 2. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking for an appropriate direction to the respondents more particularly to the respondents No'2 & 3 for appropriate direction for releasing ofthe death-cum-retirementbenefitstothepetitionerthewifeofthe deceased.

3. The husband of the petitioner viz'' Late Sri A' Manikanta' was a judiciat officer in the State olTelangana' He married to the petitioner on 29'06'2018 and during the said wedlock he is blessed with a son bom on 2504'2019' The officer suddenly committed suicide on 24'03'2024' 4. The respondent Nos'3 & 4 though the death having taken place long back, death-cum-re tirement benefits payable to the z .-\\,r family members, particularly, to the petitioner who is the widow of the deceased offtcer, though, not contented, but it appears that the respondent No.4 the father of the deceased officer had some reservations and objections in releasing the death-curn-retirement benefrts to the petitioner. The reservations and objections primarily were that there was a strained relationship between the petitioner and the deceased officer and that thel' were living separately on the date of death. It is also the contention of the respondent No.4 that perh'dps the petitioner was instrumental for the decease to commit Suicide.

5. All said and done, what we need to look into is the factual matrix of the case. The deceased officer was a judiciat olficer in the State of Telangana, he entered the judicial service on I3.10.2016 and he died on24.03.2024 after he committed suicide' Thus, the deceased officer had put in about '7 /, yeats of service till his death.

6. The legal heirs particularly the family members would be entitled for the death-cum-retirement benefits in accordance with law and rules governing the field. There does not seem to be any quanel, so far as the petitioner being the legally u'edded wife of 3 the deceased. There is also a son born to the petitioner from the marriage with the deceased ofUcer. Until and unless, there is a decree of divorce passed by a competcnt Court of law, for all practical purposes, the petitioner or the wife such would remain the legalty wedded wife and would also be entitled to receive all the admissible dues payable on the death ofher husband. 7 . Respondent No.3 also has filed their counter and in the counter in paragraph No.5, the respondent No.3 has taken a stand that there does not seem to be any dispute so far as releasing all the death-cum-retirement benefits are concemed but, it appears that the petitioner is still to complete certain formalities particularly providing the bank details like account number, IFSC code, branch name etc. It was also the contention that subject to the petitioner fumishing all these particulars, the respondents shall be processing the release of the same at the earliest.

8. The petitioner on the other hand, contends that they have already supplied ln the past. Nonetheless, the petitioner will fumish it again before the respondent No.3.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts narrated in the preceding paragraphs, we do not see any good reason to keep the writ t 4 petition pending any further, the same accordingly stands disposed of directing the peritioner to approach the oillce of the 3'd respondent forthwith and fumish whatever inlbrmation and lbrms those need to be filled up and 3'd respondent shall rendcr cooperation and thereafter the papers be processed and the admissible dues strictly in accordance to law payable to the family members of the deceased particularly the petitioner be finalized and paid at the earliest, prel'erably within a period of three (03) months trom the date of receipt ofthe copy of the ordcr.

10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, ii'any, shall stand c Iosed //TRUE COPY// SD/. M. NAGAMANI I$TANT REGISTRAR _.--t SECTION OFFICER ASS \ I To Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana-500O22- -- . Telangana-500066.

1. The principal Secretary, State of Telangana, Law ani Legislative Department, z. ine a"giitiat 1 Adrinittrrtioni, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad' g. fhe M-Jropolitan Sessions Judge, Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad- + iwo ccs to Gp FOR LAW AND LEGTSLATTVE AFFA|RS, High court for the 5. o;; cc to SRi B.VAMSHIDHAR REDDY, Advocate [oPUC] 6. One CC to SRI K.V.RAMAN, Advocate (OPUC) 7. Two CD Copies State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

500001. SA GJP HIGH COURT DATED:1510712025 ORDER WP.No.12015 of 2025 ( aIHES 14 'io 25JUt2o?5 i I ,..,.,. * * rcnsiQ DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS,