High Court · 2025

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in non- considering the application of the petitioner, and non-initiating to pay the death benefits and other benefits to the petitioner, who is a nominee appointed by the deceased husband of the petitioner in his life time, basing on the representation of the petitioner, is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, vioiation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequenfly direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner, and to pay the death benefits and other benefits to the petitioner, who is a nominee appointed by the deceased husband of the petitioner in his life time, basing on the representation of the petitioner lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 consider the application of the petitioner, and to pay the death benefits and other benefits to the petitioner, who is a nominee appointed by the I I t deceased husband of the petitioner in his life time, basing on the representation of the petitioner pend ng disposal of the writ petition lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Between: S.Shobha, W/o Late S.Nagender, aged about 54 years, Occ- Househotd, R/o Saddipally Village, libdullapurmet lvlandal, Ranga Reddy District ...PETITIONEFYRESPONDENT NO.3 AND 1 Sriram Naga Sunanda, Aged about 49 years, Occ- Household, Rl/o H.No.3- 60, Peddaguciam Village, Pochampally Mandal, Julloor Post, Yadadri Bhongiri District ...RESPONDENT NO.1/VVRIT PETITIONER 2 3 The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, TSRTC,Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad Hyderabad. Rep. by its Managing Director. The Depot Manager, TSRTC, Kushahiguda, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT No.'l &2 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Coun may be pleased to vacate the interim order passed in l.A. No. 1 of 2022 in W.P. No. 13483 ol 2022 dated 23.03.2022 by dismissing the above said W.P. No. 13483 ol 2022. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: SRI CHANDRA SEKHAR N (SC FOR TSRTC ) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI BHOOMA GOUD The Court made the following: ORDER I I : I I I j I I I I i i I ! I HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION o.13483 0F 2022 QRDER: Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri N.Chandrashekhar, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Sri Bhooma Goud, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3. 2 The oetitioner aooroached the Court seekinq Draver as under: "...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature oF Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in non- considering the application of the petitioner, and non- initiating to pay the death benefits and other beneFits to the petitioner, who is a nominee appointed by the deceased husband of the petitioner in his life time, basing on the representation of the petitioner, is highly illegal, arbitrary, u nconstitutiona l, violation of Principles oF Natural Justice, violation oF Articles L4, 16 and 21 of the Constitution oF India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner, and to pay the death benefits and other benefits to the petitioner, who is a nominee appointed by the deceased 2 SN, J husbarnd of the petitioner in his life time, repre,;entation of the petitioner and pass. basing on the

3. 'l-he case of the petitioner, in brief, s that petitioner,s husband w(lrked as TSRTC driver at Kushaiguda Depot and died due to heart attack on 23.I2.202O.It is the specific case of the petitioner tlat the petitioner is the sole nomrnee, as appointed by the petitioner's husband, to receive benefits after death of the petitioner's husband. However, the respondent no. 2 denied the death benefits along with Ex gratia, gratuity, le,ave encashment and salary, which will amount to, as per calculations, Rs.34,79,65r1/- (thirty four lakhs seventy nine thousands six hundred and tifty rupees only) to the petitioner even after several repr€rsentations made by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this writ petition. PERUSE D THE R ECORD.

4. Th s on coun er affidavit has beenfi led on behalf of the ntN 1&2 ara os. 1 icu I to 12 eund r:- ted h 10. It is respectfully submitted that inview of the rival claims, the Corporation, vide Letter No.P2,/ 188(2) / 2O2L /KG, dated 06.0Z.2O2t, advised both parties to obtain and submit a Succession 3 SN. J Certificate issued by a competent Authority for the purpose of determining the rightful beneficiary entitled to receive the settlement amounts, The said amounts include, inter alia, gratuaty, provident fund, leave encashment, and other terminal benefits accruing to the legal heirs of the deceased employee.

11. It is respectfully submitted that the Corporation has not vested interest in the present dispute and stands neutral with respect to the entitlement of the settlement dues. The Corporation is obligated to act in accordance with the law.

12. The Respondent Corporation humbly submits that it is prepared to disburse the settlement dues of late Sri S.Nagender in favour of the person(s) lawfully declared as the rightful beneficiary/beneficiaries, as determined by the appropriate forum or upon submission of a valid Succession Certificate by the concerned parties. DISCUS ION AND CON LUSION 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petationer specifically contends that in spite of petitioner's application, dated 10.10.2021 addressed to respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein seeking payment of the death benefits and other benefits to the petitioner who is a nominee appointed by the deceased petitioner's husband during his life time, there had been no action on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 4 SN. J

6. A bare perusal of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 in particular Para Nos. 1O to 12 (refered to and extracted above) clearly indicates that in pursuance to the applications submitted by the petitioner, dated 24.06.2027 and the unofficial respondent No.3 herein, dated 22.O6.2021, the proceedings, dated Cl6.07.2O2L vide Letter No.p2l188(2)/2O2L/Kc had been issued to the petitioner and also to the unofficiat respondent No.3 herein by the 2"d respondent calling upon both the petitioner and atso the unofficial respondent No.3 to submit succession certificate to process the settlement amount for the payment of the benefits of the deceased employee, giving detaits and particulars of alt the amounts, due to be paid pertaining to the said deceased employee.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the proceedings, dated Cl6.O7.2OZ1 vide Letter No.P2I188(Z)/2O2L/KG issued by the 2nd respondent calling upon the petitioner to submit T

4.- 5 SN, J succession certificate to process the settlement amounts for payment is illegal and the same is not warranted as per law.

8. This Court opines that the plea of the petitioner that there has been in-action on the application, dated 24.O6.2O2L and the representation, dated 10.1O.2021 made by the petitioner seeking release of death benefits and other benefits to the petitioner who is the nominee appointed by the deceased husband of the petitaoner during his life time is factually incorrect and contrary to the records and also the proceedings, dated 06.07.2O2t issued to the petitioner in response to the petitioner's application, dated 24.06.2021 and the application of the unofficial respondent No 3, dated 22.O6.2O2L.

9. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 submits that the petitioner may be directed to challenge the proceedings, dated 06.07.2O2L issued to the petitioner and the unofficial respondent No 3 in accordance to law, 6 'lt SN. J

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Unofficial respondent No 3 does not dispute the said submission made by the tearned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2. 1 akin int con n a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on beharf of the petitioner, tearned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos,1 & 2 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondent No.3. c) The contents of the petitioner,s representation, dated 10.1O.2O21 addressed to the 2nd respondent. d) The proceedings, dated {J6.07.2021 of the znd respondent issued to the petitioner and the unofficial respondent No 3. e) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (referred to and extracted above) 7 SN. J This Court opines that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present Writ Petition, since admittedly as borne on record, there is no inaction on the part of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and as the petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings, dated O6.O7.2O2L issued by the respondent No.2 to both the petitioner and respondent No.3, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the same in accordance to law. The Writ Petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings of the znd 06.07.2O2L vide Letter respondent, dated No.P2l188(2)t2021lKG issued to the petitioner and the unofficial respondent No 3 in response to the application of the petitioner, dated 24.O6.2021 and the application of the unofficiat respondent No 3 herein, dated 22.06.2O2L' However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A. SREENIVASA EDDY STRAR ASSISTANT SECTION FFICER To, 2 3 4 5 6 KSK 1 The Manaoinq Director. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation' TSRTC,Buis Shavan, Musheerbbad, Hyderabad' f [e'Oeboi Manager, TSRTC, Kushahi!uda, Hvde11p9! d; -c-i td Sit. Rni'ouu BHASKAR Advocate [oPU-c] - -. . -. 6;; cc io sni. cHAttonn sEKHAR N (sc FoR TSRrc) [oPUCl One CC to SRI BHOOMA GOUD Advocate [OPUC] . Two CD Co pres HIGH COURT DATED:01 10412025 ORDER WP.No.13483 of 2022 CC TODAY HE S14 (-,. a 2 2 APB 2[6 t /)/ ,? DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS L(