High Court · 2025

Petition un,Jrrr rlection 151 cPC praying that in the circum itances stated in the affidavit file c i r support of the petition, the High court nay be pleased to stay the payment c f r,cnthly pension to the 7th respondent, trrending disposal of the writ petitio n Counsel for the Petit oner: SRI K.M.MAHENDER REDDy Counsel for the Resl ondent No.1 to 6: Gp FOR SERVICES-I Counsel for the Resl r:ndent No.7: SRI KONGALA MOHAN GOIJD The Court made t\-" ollowing: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETTTION No.14O of2Ol9 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 ol the Constitution of India, is ltled seeking the following reliet "...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the n-ature of writ of mandamus by declaring iltegal actilns of the respondents No ^ to 6 in- issuing legal heir ceriificate/family membir certificate dated 04-10-2o10 to 7th respondent, by ignoring the petitioners as nominee 1st wife in service record is totatly illegal, arbitrary, unjust' discriminatory' unreasonable, without jurisdiction and opposed to public policy and also violative of prlnciples of natural justice apart from the fundamental / property rights guaranteed under Article 14' 16' 21' 3oOA of constitution oilndia and set aside said certificate dated 04- 10-2010 and issue consequential direction to a) dispose the application/ representatior dated 1o 06-2013 made by the p"iitio.r.., b) not to issue arry Revenue Re9o1d1 of Rights' Pass ^Books, Pahani in respect of SyNo28/3' 312/ /3' 324/3' 3241 ' zzz, izs ql1, 33012: $71 ,3321 , 3381 12, 3s2l.c, s8/ /3 |.nral extent Ac. 15-24 Gts, situated at Katkoor Village' without conducting enquiry, c) further direct the.Ss and 6t respondents to to ttre petitioner alone in view of 7e resPondents' ;;t-ah. d""i; appointment on compassionate grounds and to pass '"

2.HeardSriK.M.MahenderReddy,learnedcounselappearingfor the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on beha1f of respondent Nos' I to 6, and Sri Kongala Mohan Goud' learned counsel appearing for respondent No'7' Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 3. 26.Ll.lga7, the petitioner got married to one Gillela Raji reddy' who I 2 PK, J VtP.'{o.14O of 2019 v/orked a s a I r )re pump Mechalic in the responrienl l)el)artment at Husnabasd, a I both of them led a happy marital iife, .r,,rt}.rout issues. However, c L c o harassment by her husbald, she str rted living separatellz. en I later, hled O.S.No.36l of 1996 before tl:e principal District Mu-r.;i t Court, Karimnagar, seeking maintenan_rt:e of Rs.600/_ per month, ,r,l jl;h was awarded vide decree dated 112. 12 1997, and subsequently. r was enhanced to Rs.1,gO O / _ per mon,.h as per the compromise tr'; rris in O.S.No. 19 of 2OO4- Thereafterr, sht: ri:ceived the said mainte r a ),t.c arnount until the demise of her. I,rtrsbald on O5.07.2Oi0. I u,as further submitted that during hr:r husband,s lifetime, tht 1 :.l.itioner came to know that he got n rarried to respondent IIri. without her coasent, while her marriitge rvas still in subsistence. -['rr:reafter, her husbald brought pressure or1 her and got her into (:( n l,romise that, being a Government emptoyer., he shall look after he- ri rl.lbeing by providing her a_ll necessities. However, to her misfortur.e . r:rr- hustrard had passed away on OS.07 201C, leaving behind herse ll , f . ,er in_laws and the two illegitimate sc,ns through respondent N ) '7 4 petitioner aptit, It was hrr lrer submitted that after her husbald,s d()ath. the for legal heir certifrcate before tl e T'ahsildar, Bheemadevar:qra ly Mandal, but the same was not gra.n te<:l to her. 3 PK, J W.P-N,.14O of 2019 However, a Family Member Certihcate dated 04.10.2010 was issued to respondent No.7, without any notice to the petitioner, arrd surprisingly, basing on the said certificate, respondent No.7 was appointed as Helper/Attender on compassionate grounds in the Veterinary Department, and had also drawn the service benehts of the petitioner's husband. Further, respondent No-7 also took the possession of the agricultura-l land admeasuring an extent of Acs. 15-24 gts., and a house situated at Katkoor Village, Bheemadevarapally Mandat, denying her share as per law' Thereafter, the petitioner has made a representation to respondent Nos.2 to 4 on 10.O6.2O 13, requesting not to mutate the lands of her husband in favour of any third parties ald to take appropriate action against respondent No.7 in illegally obtaining the Family Member Certificate, without notice to the petitioner and to do justice by issuing the Legal Heir Certihcate in favour of the petitioner' However, no action has been taken thereon so far' It was further submitted that while tJlings stood thus, 5. respondent No.7 has also frled O'S'No'352 of 2Ol4 before the Additional Junior civil Judge at Husnabad, against the petitioner for declaring respondent No.7 as the legally wedded wife of the deceased, and the said suit is still pending' It was further contended that 4 PK, J Vt.P."Io.14O of 2019 respondent rl i' got all the death benefits under 1.he ppi,se of family member cerl ( rlte dated 04.10.2010, aJId is drau-ini1 pelsion apart from thr. : x r:,assionate employment as Helper/A tt en,1er in the Veterinar5' t),r ) rrtment at Veterinar5r Hospital, pothare m (S) Village. In fact, tht p ritioner herein is the legally weddecl fir;t wife ar-ld is legally entitter to receive pension ald other benefits. Therefore, learned cours I for the petitioner prayed this Court to pasr; necessary orders in the p -rsent writ petition.

6. Per ':or. a., learned Government pleader fcrr r,:spondents submitted ther rlte Gillela Raji Reddy was appointerl as wrrrk charged employet: on l. ) O7.7991 in Executive Engineer Wing, I,arLchayat Raj arrd Rural t e r :.opment Department, Karimnagar. Dii,i sio n. and his services v'ere r ,,.lularized on 09_07.1996, ald was apporrrte.l as a Bore Pump Mer L a I : in the same Division in the y )ar 19gg. Subsequentll . re Panchayat Raj arrd Rural Developm(,n t I repartment was bifurcatr',1 .,Ls Rural Water Supply arrd Sanilation D,:partment, ald he t,as tl r,1ed to the said Depa-rtment wherr: he w,)rked as a Pump Mec r:r j : at Husnabad, Siddipet (erstwhile F,arimnagar District), til h I demise. It was further submitted t.ra1 after the demise of Ir {; I i.illela Raji Reddy on 0S.O7.2010. respor:dent No.7 applied foi: Ie 3z heir certificate arrd family member cerl if-r<.ate before 5 PK, J W.P.N1.140 of 2019 respondent No.4, after the execution of a Memorandum of Understarrding dated 29.Og.2O1rO, with the petitioner herein, whereby' the petitioner had received arr amount of Rs'4,5O,O00/- from respondent No.7 ald agreed that respondent No'7 is the nominee of the deceased. As such, respondent No'4 issued the legal heir 04. 10.201O to certihcate and family member certificate dated respondent No.7, on the basis of which, respondent No'7 was rightly appointed as Office Subordinate in the Veterinary Department on compassionate grounds in the year 2O11' However, only after a lapse of almost two years, the petitioner submitted her representation to the authorities for the issuance of legal heir certificate and farnily member certificate in favour of the petitioner, and also approached this Court after a long lapse of eight years. Therefore, it was prayed to dismiss the present writ Petition.

7. l,earned counsel for respondent No'7 submitted that the deceasedhusbandofrespondentNo'T,lateGilleiaRajiReddy' married her in 1994 and they were blessed wittr two children' Shiva Reddy and Manjunath Reddy' During his lifetime' the deceased husbandworkedintheRura]WaterSupplyandSanitation Department as a Bore Pump Mechanic, until he passed away on 05.07.2010, due to cancer. However, only after two months of his I I i ! I l I I I l t ; I i I I I I 6 PK, J tl .P.,lo.140 of 2019 , demise, respo: too, when _h : (tent No-7 had come to know about the 6,et tioner, that ;etitioner held a panchayat beforr: tht village elders, wherein, bc t.t :,rle villagers instructed the petitioner no. t(,cause any hardship, as t old, respectir.r: law ald oth er only then, r;1Le relative ol L rLs eight years I 11 marriage {brrrrr. suffering u'i [h leave her Su 1r a job, respo r 1r happy marit r. I . : children of respondent No.7 are just g ald 1O years i. Further, respondent No.7 enquired the parents_in_ ' Jlage and community elders about the petttioner, and rarne to know that the petitioner herein ir; a distant r;nd of respondent No.7 and when her husband was lnd the petitioner was six, the elders pe rfo rme<1 child - zila pelli). Thereafter, the petitioner h,:reir. harl been l-health, ald thus, the deceased rvas inl,tructed to lquently, after several years of the rl:cease<. obtaining r I No.7 was married to him, and both r,f them led a f.: till his demise in the year 2O 10.

8. It was ir not the legall_\' performed ar rl amount o1- l*;. petitioner elrl e:

29.O9.2070. ?r respondent au tl ' her submitted that even though ttre p:ti ioner was ',.'edded wife of the deceased, as her nrar.riage was : age of six years, respondent No.7 has pt,id her an l;0,000/-, and duly acknowledging th: .;ame, the : rl into a Memorandum of Understa:td. ng dated r: a-lso submitted no-objection affir*ivi to tlie orities for providing compassionate appo ntrrent and I I I I 1 l I I i I I I i I I i ! I I I Il ! I I r I I ! 7 PKJ w.P.No.140 of 2019 other benefits to respondent No.7 and her children However' the petitioner has frled the present writ petition by suppressing al1 tltese facts. It was further submitted that when the peLitioner raised false claims again in 2013, respondent No'7 has filed a declaration suit before the Additional Junior Civil Judge vide O'S'No'352 of 2OL4' wherein, the petitioner had illed a written statement' but due to some internal miscommunication between the counsel' the said suit was dismissed for default in the year 2018' It was once again contended that the petitioner, having already received an arnount of Rs.4,5O,000/-, is now making false claims without having any legal rights, only to harass respondent No 7' Therefore' it was prayed to dismiss the present writ petition' g. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is evident that one late Gillela Raji Reddy' whoworkedasaBorePumpMechanicintherespondentDepartment had passed away on O5.07'2O10' The petitioner herein claims to be t-lle wife of the deceased and claims the deattr beneflts and all other benehts, while respondent No'7 vehemently contends that she herself is the lega1ly wedded wife of the petitioner and is rightfully enjoying the benehts. It is evident from the record that after his demise' both the petitioner and respondent No'7 executed a Memorandum of 8 PK, J IV.P. No l4O oJ 2019 Understanrl n r Cated 29.O9.2O7O, whereby, the petitio-ter accepted a settlemerlt:rr No.7 as ;h,: .: had also s r.r authorities It benefits to :r:s the basis ol h affidavit, re s tr runt of Rs.4,50,0OO/- and acknowled g:d respondent r rninee of the deceased for all benefits. .ltre petitioner rrritted a no-objection affidavit to tte respondent ' providing compassionate appointme;tt and other ),:,ndent No.7. It is also evident from the re< ord that on r Memorandum of Understalding and rhe r to-objection r,lent No.7 was appointed as OIfice Sull< rd:nate in the Veterinary J):1 : rtment.

10. in this : r:text, it is appropriate to refer to the l\l€ m( )randum of Understardirig rlated 29.O2.2O1O, and its relevant portrcn .s extracted hereundt:r "That 1 Redclt,. O5-O7 :2 Are t)ll.t bene-Ft|s -not tr\ hauing ang relationship u_tith <)i etla Raj utd Gillella Raj Reddg d_ied due to itt-h<:oltL, oi ,iO *nt Smt Gillella pad.ma and. thei.r ,:l laren ' ed for .benefits I am no LoaA conn<zctec' t.ith t nd compensate enjogment. "

11. As sur:}1 . Ie above Memorandum of Underst:urdinq and the no_ objection aJtlct, .-it indicates a clear waiver of any r:larm of the petitioner ,lv3 - - e service benefits of the deceased. 9 PK, J W.P.N2.140 of 2019

12. Further, the validity of marriages, allegations of bigamy' ald entitlement to succession benehts are all matters requiring evidence, and these involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated under the writ jurisdiction'

13. F\rrthermore, the instant writ petition was filed more than eight years after the issualce of family member certificate in favour of respondent No.7, ald her appointment as Office Subordinate in the Veterinary Department. However, no satisfactory explanation has been provided for this delay. Thus, it clearly shows that the petitioner was reluctant to approach this Court in a timely manner'

14. As regards delay in approaching this Court' a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment d.ated l3'12'2O21 in W'A Nos 1660 of 2O18 and 593 of 2016, has categorically held the delay of 5 to 18 years in preferring a writ petition under Arttcle 226 of the Constitution of India, as inordinate delay. In the present case' since there is al inordinate delay of a'lmost eight years, for which' no valid or cogent reasons are assigned, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ Petition. 10 .,' PK, J lv.P. Nct.14 O of 2Ol9

15. In lip,l - I the foregoing discussion, this Court Iir cls no merit in the prese nr :' r . petition and the same is liable to oe dismi ssed.

16. A<x:o -<il ;h., the Writ petition is dismissed. M;.scr:lla r :!us applications, if any, pending irL thi; v.rit petition, sha-ll stand < lr r:rd. No costs. //TRUE COPY// sD/- P.CH. \a NA.G,\BHUSHAMBA EPUIY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

3. 4 BSR One CC io S Ii r'l.M.I\4AHENDER REDDY, Advocate [OPtJ(]l One CC to S F '(ONGALA MOHAN GOUD, Advocate IOPLrcl TwoCCstllFFoRSERV|cES-l,HighCourtfortheStatecfTelanganaat Hyderabad iO.l-l \, Two CD Crrp t s 'w i! t, h u tI HIGH COURI DATED:1 410tt2025 VACATION COURT ORDER WP.No.140 o' 2019 /..1alE \'., r \'t OA I $ ,, iY L ' -,/ o b ,= I ,,.) DISMISSING. I"HE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT CC STS #{4 \q-- f,uu<