High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the 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 inaction of the official respondents in not taking steps to award family pension of the petitioners deceased son lslavath Sukya as his wife i.e., 6th respondent Smt Kavitha remarried is illegal, arbitrary and violative Article 21 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct (a) the Respondent Nos.2 and 9 to take steps in I awarding family pension to the petitioners as the 6th respondent Smt Kavitha remarried (b) All the respondents to initiate immediate process in awarding 1/3rd share in the alary of 6th respondent as she got compassionate appointment because of petitioners son towards their maintenance as they are senior citizen without source of income (c) All the respondents to tak,e recovery steps to recover the terminal benefits amount of petitioners deceased son withdrew by the 6th respondent Kavitha and pay the same to the petitioners (d) the respondents 2 and 9 to pay TSGLI amount to the petitioners as they are legal heirs of deceased employee Islavath Sukya forthwith, in the interest of Justice. (Prayer is amended as per C.O dt.2310812023 in lA 02120231 lA NO: 1 OF 2017 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 for the reasons started in thc, affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition it is prayed hon'ble court may be pleased to direct the official respondents 2 and 9 by taking immediate steps to disburse TSGLI sum assured with bonus to the petitioners forthwith as they are senior citizen, legal heirs, without any source of income, pending disposal of the main writ petition, in the interest of justice. (lnterim Prayer is amended as per C.O dt- 2310812023 in lA 02120231 IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Between:

1. The State Of Telangana, Rep By lts Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat Building Hyderabad.

2. The Pay and Account Officer, Saifabad Telangana Govt Hyderabad 3. The Sub Treasury Officer, The Sub Treasury Office, Devarkonda Nalgonda District. AND ...PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS '1 . lslavath Somla. S/o. Nanu. 2. lslavath Achali, W/o. Somla I i Nalgonda District

3. The lvlandal Education Officer, Mandal Praja Parishad Office, Chandarnpet, 4. The Chief Executive Otticer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Nalgonda District 5. Mrs. Kavitha, Junior Assistant,Zill Parishad High School,Vemalakonda Post 6. The Accountant General, A and E Telangana, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 7. The Director, Office of the lnsurance Directorate, 9FRH+36P, Boggulakunta, B The Mandal Education Officer, Gundlapally Mandal, Nalgonda District Valigonda Mandal Bhongir District Telanga State 5081 12. Hyderguda, Hyderabad (RR 6 to 8 (RR 7 TO 9 in WP 4530912017) are impleaded as per C.O dt.23to8/2023 in lA 0112023) ...RESPONDENTS 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 vacate the interim orders granted in lA No.l of 2017 in WP No. 45309 ot 2017 dated 12.02.2018 Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI C.YADAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,2 & 9: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI G.NARENDER REDDY, SC FOR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4,5,7 & 8: GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING Counsel forthe Respondent No.6: SRI M.RAM REDDY MPPZPP The Court made the following: ORDER I ORDER: 1 wp_45309,2017 NBK, J ON' s I A \ 1RIT PETITTON No.45309 of 2017 The petitioners are parents of Mr. Eslavath Sukya who expired on 13.07.20L2 while in service as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Gundlapally Mandal. The 6th respondent-wife of the deceased was thereafter given compassionate appointment as Junior Assistant in Chandampet Mandal and she is presently working in Valigonda Mandal of Bhongir District. It is the grievance of the petitioners that they are illiterates and were unaware of the terminal benefits of their son, and the 6th respondent claimed the terminal benefits of the deceaSed for herself' on coming to know of the same, the petitioners filed a representation before the District Collector, Nalgonda, on 15'12'2074 requesting to take action against 6th respondent for misrepresentation. They also filed a petition, O.P.No.B/1607 of 2074, before the appropriate authority under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of parents and Senior citizens Act,2007, however, there is no outcome of the said petition till date. It is stated that the 6s respondent re- married a person named P. Sandeep on 18'05'2017 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Seethaphalmandi, Secunderabad, and therefore she is no longer eligible for survivor benefit based on her late husband's record. Basedonthepetitionersrepresentation,theDistrictCollector' Nalgonda director the chief Executive officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Nalgonda to take action, whereafter, the CEO, ZPP, vide Memo dated 23.05.201.7 directed the 2nd respondent-Mandal Education Officer, Chandampet to send report for taking further action for sanctioning of 2 wp-4s309 2017 NBK, ' family pension as the competent authority for Pension sanctioning is the Chief Accountant, Office of the Accountant General, Telangana Government, and the same should be processed by the 2na respondent. It is the grievance of the petitioners that nothing materialized with regard to their request for granting of family pension as well as their legitimate share in terminal benefits of their deceased son.

2. Heard Mr. C. Yadagiri, learned counsel for the petitioners; and Mr.M. Ram Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.6. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the judgment ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarbati Devi v. SmL Usha Devil; and Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Senguptaz, contends that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a nomination made by an employee for receiving the terminal benefits, would not vitiate the rights of his Iegal heirs to claim their legitimate share in case of unfortunate demise of the employee. He draws attention ofthe Court to paragraphs 17 and 18 of Shipra Sengupta (supra), which read as follows: "17. The controversy involved in the instant case is no longer res integra. The nominee is entitled to receive the same, but the amount so received is to be distributed according to the law of succession. ln terms of the factual foundation laid in the present case, the deceased died on 8.11.1990 leaving behind his mother and widow as his only heirs and legal representatives entitled to succeed. Therefore, on the day 1(1984) 1 sCC 424 '?(2009) 10 scc 680 3 @p _45309 _2077 NBK, J when the right of succession opened, the appellant, his widow became entitled to one-half of the amount of the general provident fund, the other half going to the mother and on her death, the other surviving son getting the same'

18. ln view of the clear legal position, it is made abundantly clear that the amount under any head can be received by the nominee, but the amount can be claimed by the heirs of the deceased in accordance with the law of succession governing them. ln other words, nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee. ln the instant case, the amounts so received are to be distributed according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956."

4. The record reveals that the 6th respondent filed Memo dated 09.01.2024, stating at paragraph No.2 thereof, as follows: "2. I submit that the that the above WP filed by the petitioners regarding the grant of family pension and TSGLI insurance amounts. The above said matter was listed on 25.122023 and the after elaborate discursion the I am the daughter ln Law of the writ petitioners, and I am agreed to give 40"/" of the pension (PPO No.40-00401'llFP and PPO lD 19028573) amounts i.e., 19.05.20'1 7 onwards to the petitioners which ever amounts received from the department and also agreed to pay the Rs.60,000/- (Out of Total Amount) of lnsurance Policy No.L12O4228a dt.01.02.2006 to the writ petitioners and the above proposals the petitioners and the 6th respondent was agree amicably and the said writ petitioner was disposed of with the above observation, lam ready to fulfill the above conditions hence lam filing this affidavit before this Hon' ble Court." { t \ 4 wP_45309_2O17 N8K. J

5. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shipra Sengupta (supra), it is settled law that the Law ofSuccession comes into play and the legat heirs/successors-in-interest have legitimate interest in the terminal benefits/insurance benefits, in the event of the demise of the employee/insured; and merely a nominee is mentioned in the records does not the take away the right/interest of the other legal heirs/successors-in-interest. In that view of the matter, the petitioners being parents and dependents of the deceased, are the legal heirs/successors-in-interest in the terminal and insurance benefits of the deceased.

09.0L.2024

6. Considering the respective submissions, and in the light of the judgment in Shipra Sengupta (supra), and also the Memo dated filed by respondent No.6 stating that an amicable has been reached between the petitioners and 6th agreement respondent, with regard to the sharing of pension and terminal benefits' the 6rh respondent is directed to pay 40o/o of the pension amount as per the Pension Payment Order, and also the other terminal benefits, within a period of lwo weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order'

7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs' Miscellaneous petitions pending, if anY, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above' Witness THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL' on this riTONV, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE I //TRUE COPY// SD/.P. PADMANABHA REDDY EPUTY REGISTRAR SE N OFFICER To The Principal Secretary, Education Department' Secretariat Building Hvderabad, State Of Telangana' iilI"rr,r1?,i";r Eiir"""iion ori;",. rt/|andat praja parishad office, Chandampet, Nalgonda District 2 /

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Nalgonda District 4. The Pay and Account Officer, Accountant General (A&E) Officer Saifabad Telangana Govt Hyderabad \

5. The S-ub Treasury-Officer, The Sub Treasury Offrce, Devarkonda Nalgonda District.

6. The Accountant General, A and E Telangana, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 7. The Director, Office of the lnsurance Directorate, 9FRH 36P, Boggulakunta, Hyderguda, Hyderabad

8. The M-andal E-ducation Officer, Gundlapally Mandal, Nalgonda District. 9. One CC to SRi C YADAGIRI, Advocate [OPUC] '10.Two CCs to GP FOR HIGHER EDUCAION, High Court for the State of 'l l Two Cts to GP FoR rttlRNcE PLANNING, High Court for the State of t2.cjne ic to c.ruAnrNDER REDDY, sc FoR MPPZPP [oPUC] 'l3.One CC to SRI M RAM REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 14.fwo CD Copies Telanqana, at Hyderabad. [OUTI PSK BS s I HIGH COURI'. DATED:21 10212025 \ \ ORDER WP.No.45309 of 2017 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @q'e *al* I t HE STA rC: 1 ( I ,.} 2 i i{t,,i rrl'ri I ,LJ -,::FA,fc.tlg0