✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court · 29 Nov 2007

Smt.Sankuru Bharati v. Chief Accounts Officer & Ors.

W.P No. 25238 of 2007R SUBHASH REDDY2 min read

Case at a glance

Decided
29 Nov 2007
Bench
R SUBHASH REDDY

Outcome

Disposed of

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of

Provisions considered

Judgment

Cause title

Smt. Sankuru Bharati. And ..Petitioner

Chief Accounts Officer and others. ..Respondents

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY W.P.No.25238 of 2007

ORDER:

Operative part

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not disbursing the benefits, accrued on account of the death of her husband, by name, Sankuru George Wilson, as illegal and arbitrary. The husband of the petitioner was an employee of BSNL and he died, while in service. It is the case of the petitioner that though certain benefits are payable on account of the death of her husband, the same are not being paid to her, by the respondents. It is also stated that a third party has filed a suit, being O.S.No.75 of 2004 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gurajala, for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,18,400/-, against the petitioner; and in I.A.No.452 of 2004, he obtained an order of attachment. In pursuance of the said order, the 1st respondent-Chief Accounts Officer, Pay and Accounts, sent a letter, dated 18.10.2004, to the learned Senior Civil Judge, giving the details of the amounts, which are attachable, and which are not. In spite of the same, no steps are being taken by the respondents, for disbursing the death benefits of the husband of the petitioner. Even according to the petitioner, the attachment order, passed in I.A.No.452 of 2004 in O.S.No.75 of 2004 by the Senior Civil Judge, Gurajala, is still in force. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the respondents withheld the death benefits of the husband of the petitioner, on their own accord. It is stated that certain amounts are not liable for attachment, in view of proviso to Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is for the petitioner to put forth her defence and seek a direction to raise the attachment order, passed in I.A.No.452 of 2004. Inasmuch as it is stated that the I.A. is of the year 2004, and it is still pending consideration, I direct the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gurajala, to dispose of I.A.No.454 of 2004 in O.S.No.75 of 2004, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the learned Senior Civil Judge, shall consider and pass orders in the said I.A., on its own merits, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Dt.29.11.2007 Note: _________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

1.

Office to mark a copy of the order to the Senior Civil Judge, Gurajala.

2.

Furnish C.C. in three days. (B/o) GJ

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 60.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 29 Nov 2007. The bench was R SUBHASH REDDY.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. W.P No. 25238 of 2007). ← Search more judgments