tN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) k TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIl^l TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE 7' X c? PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 7290 OF 2018 Between: 1. K. Ramanna, S/o. K. Paravathappa Aged about 68 years, Weaver, 2. K. Sannamma, W/o. K. Ramana Aged 68 years. House wife. Both are residents of H.no.8/130, Mugathipeta, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District. ...Petitioners AND 1. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep., by its Vice Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Vijayawada. 2. The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, At Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3. Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Yemmiganur, Kurnool District. 4. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Accounts Section) Regional Office, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 5. K. Suguna, W/o. Late Ereshappa R/o. 8/63, Mugathipeta, Yemmiganur Kurnool, Kurnool District. ...Respondents 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 Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in releasing the death benefits of the petitioners deceased son in favour of the 5*'' respondent without passing any orders on the representation dated 26-02-2018 made by the petitioners is as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to pay the death benefits of their deceased son infavour of the petitioners pursuant to the representation dated 26-02- 2018. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 respondents 1 to 3 not to release the death benefits of the deceased son of the petitioners to the respondent pending petition in this Honourable court. writ Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI ARAVALA RAMA RAO, SC FOR APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI T. BALAJI, SC FOR EPFO Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY DESAI The Court made the following: 1 APHQOI0166802018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 7290/2018 Between; ...PETITIONER(S) K. Ramanna and Others AND The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ...RESPONDENT(S) and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.T BALAJI(SC FOR EPFO) 2.LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY DESAl 3.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) 4.. The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “ to issue a Writ, order or direction more particuiarly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in releasing the 2 death benefits of the petitioners’ deceased son in favour of the 5^^ respondent without passing any orders on the representation dated 26-02-2018 made by the petitioners is as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to pay the death benefits of their deceased son in favour of the petitioners pursuant to the representation dated 26-02-2018 and pass such other order or orders ” 2. Heard Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, Sri T.Balaji, learned Standing Counsel for EPFO, appearing for the 4'*^ respondent and Sri Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai, learned counsel for the 5^*^ respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners 3. herein are old aged parents to the deceased, who worked as Sramic in the Corporation of respondents 1 to 3 and unfortunately died in service. Learned counsel would further submit that during the lifetime of the deceased, because of matrimonial disputes with the 5*^ respondent, the 5'^ respondent, who is his wife along with children, used to stay separately at her parents’ house. In that regard, she has preferred a maintenance case against the deceased son of the petitioners in M.C.No.5 of 2016. An amount of Rs.1,500/- was granted as monthly maintenance to the 5'^ respondent and Rs. 1,000/- each to their two children. Aggrieved thereby, the deceased son of the petitioners preferred a revision, wherein the monthly maintenance amount is reduced to Rs. 1,000/- to the wife and Rs.500/- each to the children. Learned counsel would further submit that simply because the name of the 5^^ respondent is mentioned as 3 the S**" respondent is not entitled to take the entire death benefits of They are purely dependants to their son. counsel finally submits that the petitioners got issued a legal notice to the respondents 1 to 3 not to disburse the death benefits of their son to the 5'^ respondent and they have no objection to give any compassionate appointment to the 5*^ respondent. Learned counsel finally submits that part of the amount should be given to the petitioners being old aged parents of the deceased along with the 5*^ respondent and her children. nominee Learned their deceased son. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 would submit that as per their circular instructions, when an employee mentioned the name of the who is the wife, they have to disburse the amount to the nominee only. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that because of the interim orders passed by this Court, they have not disbursed the remaining amount, except Rs.1,82,000/- by way of cheque, which was already disbursed 4. nominee by the date of the order. Learned Standing Counsel for the 4^^ respondent would submit that as per the terms of provisions of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and Manual of Accounting Procedure Part III, the widow and children pension has been processed and settled by the Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Hyderabad. The 4*^ respondent has to grant pension to the wife and children. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.2,901/- was 5. 4 A> granted to the wife and Rs.725/- each was granted to the children respectively towards monthly family pension of the deceased. Learned counsel for the 5^^ respondent would submit that the deceased preferred the name of the respondent as nominee. So that, she is entitled to receive all the amount. If the petitioners have any claim, they can approach the civil Court. Learned counsel for the 5^^ respondent would further submit that it is not the case of the petitioners that the 5*^ respondent is the divorced wife of the deceased. As such, she is entitled to receive all the death benefits of the deceased. 6. 7. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material placed on record, the pleadings of respective parties, one thing is clear that there is no dispute about the relationship between the parties. Admittedly, the 5'^ respondent is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and the couple blessed with two children and whereas, the petitioners herein are old aged parents of the deceased employee. The petitioners would urge for proportionment of some amount for their sustenance, since they are dependants to the deceased employee. The fact remains that the deceased son of the petitioners mentioned in his service particulars, the 5‘^ respondent Needless to say that nominee can collect the death benefits whatever of the deceased, but that itself does not automatically entitled for a right to have that amount. On careful scrutiny of the pleadings of both parties, as this Court observed that the 5*'^ respondent has not filed any counter, the as nominee. 5 -41!'VK S**" respondent and her two children, the 2'^'^ petitioner being mother of the deceased, are entitled to have the death benefits of the deceased. In that view, in the absence of evidence before the Court to show that the 1®* petitioner is incapable of maintaining himself and totally dependent to the deceased, this Court cannot order any amount in favour of the 1 petitioner. But, coming to the case of the 2^'* petitioner, being the mother of the deceased, she is entitled to receive the amount along with the 5 respondent and her children. 8. St th 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed in favour of the 2 petitioner directing the respondents 1 to 3 to disburse the amount of death benefits whatever the amount entitled to the family of the deceased. But the respondent, being nominee, on receipt of such amount, is directed to disburse of the amount to the 2'^^ petitioner. However, the family pension which was granted to the wife and children, holds good. There shall be order as to costs. nd no As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P.VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Vice Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vijayawada. 2. The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, At Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3. Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Yemmiganur, Kurnool District. 4. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Regional Office, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 5. K. Suguna, W/o. Late Ereshappa R/o. 8/63, Mugathipeta, Yemmiganur Kurnool, Kurnool District. 6. One CC to Sri S Lakshminarayana Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri Aravala Rama Rao, Standing Counsel [OPUC] 9. One CC to Sri T. Balaji, Standing Counsel for EPFO [OPUC] Three CD Copies (Accounts Section) for APSRTC 10. sree HIGH COURT DATED:29/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.7290 of 2018 ^ 2 3 JUN 2025 i ^^j^vQjifrentSectigiiX^ ^•^Sseaisass^ €: m Co PARTLY ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS