APHC010479182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 24609/2025 Between: 1. KANDAVALLI PRIYANKA,, W/O LATE SUDHAKAR BABU, AGED 47 YEARS, HOUSEWISE, R/O C/O GURUVINDAPALLI DASU, NEAR CHURCH, HARIJANAWADA PEDAMADDALI VILLAGE, PAMARRU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, JCJC GURIVADA. 2. KANDAVALLI ASMITHA,, D/O LATE SUDHAKAR BABU, AGED 22 YEARS. MEDICO, R/O C/O GURUVINDAPALLI DASU, NEAR CHURCH, HARIJANAWADA, PEDAMADDALI VILLAGE, PAMARRU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, JCJC GURIVADA. 3. KANDAVALLI PRANEETH CHOWDARY,, S/O LATE SUDHAKAR BABU, AGED 20 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/O C/O GURUVINDAPALLI DASU, NEAR CHURCH, HARIJANAWADA PEDAMADDALI VILLAGE, PAMARRU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, JCJC GURIVADA. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, 2 SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP - 522503 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PULICHINTALA PROJECT, DIVISION 2, NEW COLONY, JAGGAIAHPET, NTR DISTRICT. 3. MORLA NAGENDRA BABU, S/O ATCHUTHA RAMAIAH, AGE 32 YEARS PROPERTIES, D.NO. 5-199, NEARZPH SCHOOL, PENAMALURU (V AND M), KRISHNA DISTRICT 521139. 4. SUREDDY USHA RANI, W/O MADALA SAMBASIVARAO, RETIRED TEACHER. AGED 70 YEARS, R/O PEDA OGIRALA VILLAGE, VUYYURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, VUYYURU JCJC. 5. MADALA SAMBASIVARAO, S/O BHUSHAIAH, RETIRED TEACHER, AGED 73 YEARS, R/O PEDA OGIRALA VILLAGE, VUYYURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 6. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, PATAMATALANKA BRANCH (CODE 20542), RING ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT - 520008. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus and 1. Declare that the petitioners, being the widow and children of the deceased employee Sri Khandavalli Sudhakar Babu, are entitled to receive the full death-cum- retirement benefits, including gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of salary, family pension, and all other statutory dues, without any deduction or withholding 2.Direct the Respondent No. 2 (employer/department concerned) to forthwith release all such death-cum-retirement benefits to the petitioners, without giving 3 effect to any attachment orders passed in O.S. No. 1741 of 2023, O.S. No. 96 of 2023, and O.S. No. 97 of 2023, and without reference to or reliance upon the letters issued by the State Bank of India 3. Declare that the actions of the respondent no.2 in withholding the rightful entitlements and benefits of the Petitioners as illegal and violative of Article 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 Respondent No. 2 to release the death-cum-retirement benefits due to the deceased employee, Sri Khandavalli Sudhakar Babu, including gratuity, arrears of salary, leave encashment, and other admissible dues, to the petitioners, without reference to the attachment orders or letters issued by the State Bank of India, Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. TAGORE YADAV YARAGORLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.24609 of 2025 O R DE R: This writ petition is filed seeking to declare that Petitioners are entitled to receive full death-cum-retirement benefits including gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of salary, family pension and all other dues without reference to attachment orders in O.S.Nos.1741, 96 and 97 of 2023 and without reference to the letters issued by the State Bank of India. 2. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as under: The husband of Petitioner No.1 Khandavalli Sudhakar Babu who served as Deputy Executive Engineer, Pulichintala Project, Jaggaiahpet Division, expired on 01.06.2023, leaving behind Petitioner No.1 and two minor children as class-1 heirs. 3. Respondent No.3 filed O.S.No.1741 of 2023 before IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada seeking recovery of amounts due and for recovery of loan amounts due from husband of Petitioner No.1. I.A.No.62 of 2023 was filed therein under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC seeking conditional attachment from the death benefits of K.Sudhakar Babu. The Junior Civil Judge, 5 Vijayawada passed orders on 18.08.2023 withholding the benefits to a tune of Rs.11,45,074/-. 4. Similarly, Respondent No.4 filed O.S.No.96 of 2023 before Junior Civil Judge, Vuyyuru seeking for recovery of amounts given to late Sudhakar Babu. I.A.No.472 of 2023 was filed therein and the trial Court vide order dated 11.08.2023 passed orders of attachment from the death benefits of K.Sudhakar Babu to a tune of Rs.8,74,750/-. 5. Respondent No.5 also filed O.S.No.97 of 2023 before Junior Civil Judge, Vuyyuru seeking for recovery of amounts given to late Sudhakar Babu. I.A.No.473 of 2023 was filed therein and the trail Court vide order dated 11.08.2023 passed orders of attachment from the death benefits of K.Sudhakar Babu to a tune of Rs.8,52,650/-. 6. This writ petition was filed on the ground that the retirement/death benefits are expressly exempted under Section 60(1)(g)of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1980 and therefore, the impugned order of attachment cannot be sustained and dehors the orders of attachment passed by the civil Court and Petitioners are seeking for a direction for payment of the retirement benefits. 6 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners reiterated her submissions on par with the pleadings in the writ petition. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Sri S.Raju would submit that the writ petition cannot be maintained as the Petitioners being defendants in the suits should file an appropriate application before the trial Court and seek for vacating/modifying the orders of attachment. 9. Having heard the respective counsel, this writ petition appears to be misconceived as the Petitioners are virtually questioning the orders of the civil Court in the above mentioned suits. The correctness or otherwise of the orders of the civil Court have to be adjudicated in the hierarchical Courts i.e. by way of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC rather than by filing the writ petition. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath1 held that writ petitions against the orders of a civil Court are not maintainable. After referring to case law, it was held at Paragraph at 27 as under: 1 2015 (5) SCC 423 7 27. Thus, we are of the view that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226. We are also in agreement with the view of the referring Bench that a writ of mandamus does not lie against a private person not discharging any public duty. Scope of Article 227 is different from Article 226. 11. Therefore, the writ petition being misconceived is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 12.09.2025 KLP