N N ^ NN ' V IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRi ppAnccu (Special Originai jemo,;; • '''^'^TH day OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE the honourable SRI justoe^r raghunandan THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA WRIT PETITION Nos: 8339 & 20041 WRIT PETITION NO: 8339 OF 2094 Between: JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA of 2024 K.Krishna Kumari, W/o. Late K.Suryanaravana Civil Ju(dge (JunL 182. Street No.4, Old Panchayat Road , Aged about 57 years Division), Palakol, R/o. 7- Pallangi, East Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND NetapaCAmaShrSunto 2. Principal District Judge, West Godavari Penumantra Mandal. West lodta^n-Difwcf' Bhatlamaguturu Village, petitioner^'p/o^l-^^Vamalaya^rn ^ Penumantra Mandai, WesfSva^ ^strict District At Eluru. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying tha, in be pleased to issue a Writ. Order or Direction, nature of Writ of Mandamus more particularly one in the passed by the 2 declaring the orders nd respondent dt. 23-03-2024 i funeral expenses and other death wholly illegal, arbitrary Constitution of India and entitled for any death benefits. in so far as it relates to directing release of benefits in favour of the 3 respondent is 16 and 21 of the and violative of Articles 14, consequently declare that the 3 rd respondent is not lA NO: 1 OF 9n9A Petition under Section 151 stated in the affidavit filed i pleased to suspend the order dt. i.e. Principal District Judge, West Godavari Counsel for the Petitioner: CPC praying that in the circumstances may be respondent in support of the petition, the High Court 23-03-2024 passed by the 2 nd at Eluru. SRI HEMANTH KUMAR VEMURI Counsel for the Respondents; M/s R ANNAPURNA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 20041 OF 9noyi Between: 1. Katikitala Vara Lakshmi Aged about 57 years '^R/fn 2 District 4. Katikitala Manikyam, W/o late R/o.D.No. 11-76/1, Godavari District. Rr=h™ Satyam, Aged about 80 Brahmana Cheruvu, Penumantra years, Mandal, West ...Petitioners AND 2. The Principal District Judge, Eluru P^lakol, West Godavari West Godavari District. ^’’if^cipal Accountant General M.G.Road, Vijayawada, Krishna 5. The District Treasury Officer (A and E), Andhra Pradesh District. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, years. Occi^Tni^'^ AssistlnVp^^^^ Ramakrishna, Aged about 57 Division), Palakol R/o 7 182 9tra ?m Judge (Junior Pallangi'East Goda^armiScT ■Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue in may a Writ of Mandamus, or other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the Order dated 23-03-2024 passed by the 2 nd respondent herein to the extent of withholding payable to the Petitioner No.1 the pensionary benefits on the account of death of her husband Katikitala Suryanarayana while working as Junior Assistant, Principal Junior Civil Judge (Junior Division). Palakollu arbitrary, unreasonable West Godavari District as illegal, contrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions contemplated under 1980 and the Andhra Pradesh the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, Respondents 2 to 5 herein forthwith benefits infavour of Petitioner No.1 1964 and consequently direct the to release and pay the pensionary on the account of death of her husband. lA NO: 1 OF 9n9d Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents 2 pay the pensionary benefits infavour of Petitioner death of her husband Katikitala Suryanarayana Assistant. Principal Junior Civil Judge (Junior Godavari District, pending disposal of the Counsel for the Petitioners: praying that in the circumstances to 5 herein forthwith to release and No. 1 on the account of while working as Junior Division), Palakollu, West writ petition. SRI P DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: M/s R ANNAPURNA Counsel for the Respondents: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following SRI HEMANTH KUMAR VEMURI GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING common order: APHC010159722024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA A rv P-* I r-rxMUCOnI AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3493] FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION Nos: 8339 AND 20041/2024 Writ Petition No.8339 of 2024 Between; K.KRISHNA KUMARI, W/0. L^TE K.SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. JUNIOR ASSISTANT, DIVISION), PALAKOL, R/0. 7-182, STREET N0.4, OLD PANCHAYAT ROAD, PALLANGI, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR ...WRIT PETITIONER AND I.HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR (GENERAL), NELAPADU, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT ELURU. 3.K MANIKYAM, W/0. LATE PEDDA SATYAM, AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE R/O.H.NO.1-63, RAMALAYAM STREET, PENUMANTRA MANDAL, WEST WRIT PETITIONER, BHATLAMAGUTURU VILLAGE, GODAVARI DISTRICT 4.K VARA LAKSHMI, W/0. L^.TE K.SURYANARAYANA, AGE NOT KNOWN R/0. 1-63, RAMALAYAM STREET, PENUMANTRA MANDAL, WEST TO THE WRIT PETITIONER, BHATLAMAGUTURU VILLAGE, GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT{S): Counsel for the Writ Petitioner: 2 1.HEMANTH KUMAR VEMURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.R ANNAPURNA 2.P DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following: Writ Petition No.20041 of 2024 Between: 1.KATIKITALA VARA LAKSHMl, W/O.LATE K.SURYA NARAYANA @ KATIKITALA VARA LAKSHMl, W/O.LATE K.SURYA NARAYANA @ SURYA RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, CHERUVU, PENUMANTRA MANUAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. R/O.D.NO.L 1-76/1, BRAHMANA 2.KATIKITALA MANIKYAM, W/O.LATE PEDDA SATYAM, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.L 1-76/1, BRAHMANA CHERUVU, PENUMANTRA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...WRIT PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NELAPADU, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL. 2.THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3.THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION, PALAKOL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4.THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL A AND E, ANDHRA PRADESH, M.G.ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5.THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6.KODURI KRISHNA KUMARI, W/O.LATE KODURI RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC JUNIOR ASSISTANT, PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), PALAKOL, R/0.7-182, STREET N0.4, OLD PANCHAYAT ROAD, PALLANGI, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Writ Petitioner(S): 1.P DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 2. R ANNAPURNA 3.HEMANTH KUMAR VEMURI 4.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: {Per Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa) Since both these writ petitions came to be filed between the parties, to avoid confusion and repetition, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in W.P.No.8339 of 2024 and both the matters are decided by way of this Common Order. Fleard Sri Hemanth Kumar Vemuri, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Ms.R.Annapurna, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. same 2. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that, after the demise of the 1®* husband of the Writ Petitioner namely K.Ramakrishna, who was working as an Attender in Munsif Court, Kovvuru, she got compassionate appointment in Munsif Court, Kovvuru and subsequently, she was promoted from time to time and presently she is working as a Junior Assistant in Additional Junior Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol. would further submit that the Writ Petitioner got acquainted with K.Suryanarayana, who is the husband of Respondent No.4 herein and who was working as a Process Server. Learned counsel one In view of the matrimonial disputes hc»f\A/QQn kyw c V V I • CoiH Qi ir\/Qnoro\/rir-^o nr\r\ QoorvrM^^/<«.^4. A jr <-4i IC4I Ciy C4I icn C4i iVJd 11 I^U.^ Cll lU Uk A-v v-y-k i •> I lOI oil y ^ II lO cases between them, Respondent No.4 deserted him and had been living separately. As such, said Suryanarayana married the Writ Petitioner and also adopted her son. That being so, K.Suryanarayana died on 07.03.2023. Learned counsel would further submit that, though the name of the Writ Petitioner was shown as nominee in all the records including e-Service Register, on the application submitted by Respondent No.3 herein, who is the mother of K.Suryanarayana, Respondent No.2 herein vide Orders dated 23.03.2024 directed the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Palakol to release the funeral expenses and death benefits of said Suryanarayana, except pension in her favour by ignoring the nomination held by the Writ Petitioner herein. With regard to the pensioner benefits. Respondent No.2 granted liberty to the parties to avail appropriate legal remedy as per due process of law, by keeping the pensionary benefits on hold. Learned counsel would finally submit that, though the name of the Writ Petitioner was kept as nominee of said Suryanarayana in all his service records, the death benefits cannot be granted to Respondent No.3. 4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that the name of the Writ Petitioner is not mentioned as nominee in the Service Register of the deceased employee, and without any documentation, she cannot claim as the Learned counsel would further submit that the alleged nomination in e-service register is not a conclusive proof, as no reason has been offered by the Writ Petitioner for not entering the same in the manual service register of nominee. 5 the deceased employee. It is further submitted that Iin view of the existence of No.4 herein and cannot claim right as a wife unless that, on a careful examination of In existence, Respondent No.2 had Learned counsel would finally submit that legally wedded wife is alive supported by family members certificate Petitioner cannot seek such relief. a legally accepted marital relationship between Respondent the deceased employee, the Writ Petitioner it is proved. Learned counsel would submit the material available and the Rules passed the orders. when the the Writ 5. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.3 Writ Petitioner is not a legally wedded wife of submitted that the Writ Petitioner has already got view of her husband Koduri and 4 would submit that the the deceased employee. It is compassionate appointment in Ramakrishna and she K.Suryanarayana by exchange of garlands and the Writ married Petition failed to make necessary entries about her marriage in her service register. Learned counsel would further submit that the marriage of Respondent No.4 herein with said Suryanarayana has not been dissolved by way of any decree of a competent Court. It IS submitted that K.Suryanarayana is not the biological father Koduri Uday Bhaskar, who is the son of the Writ Petitioner through her husband K.Ramakrishna. As such compassionate appointment of the son of the Writ Petitioner is not acceptable as he was not born out of the wedlock of the Writ Petitioner and K.Suryanarayana. Learned counsel would finally submit that of this Court. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition and prays to release the there are no justifiable grounds warranting interference 6 pensionery benefits to Respondent No.4, who is the wife of the deceased employee K.Suryanarayana. 6. Admittedly, both these writ petitions have been filed impugning the proceedings issued by the Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, dated 23.03.2024. There is no dispute over the relationship of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein with the deceased employee K.Suryanarayana. The entire dispute revolves round the relationship of the Writ Petitioner herein and her son with the deceased employee. A keen perusal of the said proceedings would disclose that, on scrupulous enquiry and careful examination of the documents filed by the parties, the learned Principal District Judge, West Godavari held that there is no document to prove the alleged marriage between the Writ Petitioner and the deceased employee K.Suryanarayana and as such the same is not a valid one in view of the subsistence of the marriage between Respondent No.4 herein and the deceased employee. Thereby, the learned District Judge passed the impugned order directing the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakole to release the funeral expenses and other death benefits, except pension, to Respondent No.3 herein, who is the mother of the deceased employee K.Surayanarayana. However, while giving liberty to both parties to seek legal remedy, as per the due procedure of law as to the validity of the marriage, the learned District Judge ought not to have given a finding that the compassionate appointment of the son of the Writ Petitioner herein is not acceptable as there is no legal marital relationship between the Writ Petitioner herein and the deceased employee and the said child is not born out of their wedlock. 7. Learned counsel representing both parties reported no objection to grant half of the death benefits of the deceased to his mother i.e., Respondent No.3 herein. In view of the contentions raised on both sides and having regard to the facts and circumstances present writ petitions, this Court is of the view that 8. no interference of this Court is required in the finding of the learned District Judge, West Godavari with regard to the release of funeral expenses to the mother of the deceased employee. However, so far as the death benefits of the deceased employee are concerned, this Court is of the view that the mother of the deceased employee is entitled to half of the same and the remaining half of said death benefits shall be granted along with the pensionary benefits, to the party who succeeds in the challenge before the competent Court as to the validity of the marriage. Accordingly, Writ Petition Nos.8339 & 20041 of 2024 are disposed of with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K.TATA RAO DEPUTY. REGISTRAR 9. / //TRUE COPY// SEC fiteToFFICER To, 1. The Registrar General, Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Principal District Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3. The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol, West Godavari District. % ^ M^C General (A and E), Andhra Pradesh M.G.Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ^raaesn. 5. The District Treasury Officer. Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 6. One CC to Sri P Durga Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to M/s R Annapurna, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri Hemanth Kumar Vemuri ^ [OIJT^^^ to GP for Finance Advocate [OPUC] & Planning, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 10. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED; 10/01/2025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.8339 & 20041 of 2024 so 3 n JAN r25 DISPOSING BOTH THE WPs WITHOUT COSTS