APHC010086482022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 5374/2022 Between: Varla Mery Rani The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES III (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “…..to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not considering 27.12.2021 by way of legal notice through her learned Advocate submitted for releasing service terminal Benefits consequent upon the death of her husband Varla Bala Kotaiah who worked as Secondary grade teacher at M P P School, 04.02.2017 while in the service, as illegal Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay petitioners sa and pass……” 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 5374/2022 ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR SERVICES III (AP) The Court made the following: writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for “…..to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not considering petitioners application dated 2021 by way of legal notice through her learned Advocate submitted for releasing service terminal Benefits consequent upon the death of her husband Varla Bala Kotaiah who worked as Secondary Kalavakur Village of Addanki Mandal in Prakasam District died on as illegal, irregular, irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay petitioners said benefits and pass IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3310] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for “…..to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF petitioners application dated 2021 by way of legal notice through her learned Advocate submitted for releasing service terminal Benefits consequent upon the death of her husband Varla Bala Kotaiah who worked as Secondary Kalavakur Village of Addanki Mandal in Prakasam District died on irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of id benefits and pass 2 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband Varla Bala Kotaiah had worked as Secondary grade teacher at M.P.P. School in the services of respondents No.1 to 4 at Kalavakur Village of Addanki Mandal in Prakasam District. After joining into the service in the respondents' organization, petitioner's husband worked to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors without there being any adverse remarks what so ever from anybody during his tenure. Unfortunately, while he was in service as a Secondary grade teacher, her husband died on 04.02.2017. The petitioner's husband died intestate, leaving behind petitioner and a son by name Varla Ranjit Kumar and a daughter by name Varla Harika as legal heirs. After the demise of petitioner's husband, the petitioner personally approached the 4th respondent and requested to release and pay death benefits of her deceased husband to her forthwith since she has no any other source of income. Even though the petitioner has submitted all requisite copies of documents such as Death Certificate of her husband, Family Members Certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer and Ration Card, the respondent authorities have not considered the case of the petitioner and not released the benefits to her. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.4 denying all the allegations made in the petition. It is stated that the petitioners' husband worked as SGT and died on 4/2/2017. The plea of the petitioner is that the respondents illegally stopped release of the pensationary benefits, though there is no attachment order of pensionary benefits. It is stated that, 3 one Immeadisetty Sambasiva rao filed a suit against the petitioner herein and obtained a garnishee order, from the Hon'ble Senior civil judge, Gurazala, vide its orders dt.16/2/2017 made in I.A.No.112/2017 in O.S.No.22/2017 under Rule 5 of Order 38 of CPC, for an amount of Rs.6,20,000/- from the leave salary and death benefits of defendant by name Varla Bala kotaiah. The petitioner herein also a party to the said order, having know the attachment orders passed by the competent civil court, restraining the respondents herein not to release to a tune of Rs.6,20,000/-. It is not fair on the part of the petitioner, that the respondents wantonly withheld the amounts. It is further stated that, similarly, Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, vide its orders dt.28/4/2017 made in I.A. No.538/2017 in OS No. 273/2017, on an application filed by Shaik Ibrahim, S/o Hus Saheb, for attachment of death benefits etc., directed to withhold an amount of Rs.6,55,560/- i.e., leaves and arrears of salary of deceased varla Bala Kotaiah, if such amount is not available, attach the available amount. The said order clearly ordered to attach the leave salary and arrears of such amount, attach the available amount. In the instant of salary of deceased, the available amounts of Varla Bala Kotaiah, are death benefits, which are directed to for the petitioner, to get vacate the said orders, so as to release the amounts withhold. It is always open in the absence of such, further orders from the competent civil court, where there is a clear direction by a competent civil court, to with hold the amounts, it is not open to respondents to release the said amounts, and the same amounts to contempt of civil court. As such, really, the petitioner is 4 interested to release of the amounts, it is always open for the petitioner to approach the competent civil court, to obtain proper and necessary orders in the matter. It is further stated in the counter that the deceased Varla Balakotaiah, while he was alive, applied for the Syndicate Bank, Korisapadu mandal, Prakasam district, for loan. The said loan was obtained from the bank, based on the salary certificate undertaking letter given by the office of Mandal Education Officer, Addanki, and later, the husband of the petitioner failed to pay the installments, consequently, Syndicate Bank, got issued a letter dated 03/01/2017, as on the said date, the due amount is Rs.5,74,874/-. Apart from the same, One Mr.Khambhampati Venkateswarlu, s/o.Lakshmi Kanthaiah, also filed a suit i.e., OS No.61/2015 on the file of Sr.Civil Judge, Addanki, vide its orders 8/2/2016 decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 3,44,000/-. The reply respondents learnt that the death benefits were attachéd for an amount of Rs.5.33.340/- vide civil court orders Made in EP No.147/2015 in OS No.151/2014. The reply respondents came to know that the Hon'ble Sr. Civil Judge, Adda passed orders to an amount of Rs.8,10,000/- vide its orders made in O.S.No.33/2017. All the above clearly demonstrates that the deceased Varla Balakotaiah, was indebted to so many persons, and attachment orders are passed by the competent civil courts, which directed to withhold the amounts of the deceased. In lieu of the orders of different Civil Court orders, release of the death benefits, at this juncture, amounts to contempt of civil court, and can be released on the further orders of Hon'ble 5 Civil Court, or as directed by this Hon'ble Court. It is therefore prayed to dismiss the Writ petition as devoid of merits. 4. Heard Ms. N. Revathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the petition, submits that, the Respondents cannot attach gratuity, provident funds and group insurance amount as per provisions of Section 60 C.P.C. 1908 and as per the settled principles of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Hon'ble Court. She further submits that the Respondents are under obligation to file a letter along with their counter affidavit showing the entire death benefits by separately mentioning under different heads thereby they could determine attachable and non- attachable portion of entire death-benefits, but the Respondents failed to do the same and their counter affidavit is silent as to the amount which the petitioner is entitled to receive and the portion of retirement benefits liable for the attachment. The Respondent being garnishee is also under the obligation to categorize attachable portion out of the total amount, which they are suppressing in order to avoid payment of the petitioner’s husband's death benefits. Therefore, the respondents are under legal obligation to pay the non- attachable amount to the writ petitioners by categorizing different heads of retiremental benefits duly bringing it to the notice of Hon'ble Civil Courts. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similarly situated person has 6 filed a writ petition before this Court and the same was allowed by this Court in WP No. 3644 of 2021, dated 24.10.2024. Therefore learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to pass similar order in this writ petition also. 6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents opposed for allowing the writ petition in terms of the said order as it is not applicable to the present facts of the case and prayed to dismiss the same. 7. Perused the material available on record. 8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner’s husband had worked as Secondary Grade Teacher at M.P.P. School in the services of the respondents No.1 to 4 at Kalavakur village of Addanki Mandal in Prakasam District. While the petitioner’s husband was in service, he died on 4.2.2017. It is the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that, the family pension and other terminal benefits for which the petitioners are entitled to get after demise of her deceased husband are not settled by the respondents till today. 9. This court further observed that, while the petitioner’s husband alive, some persons approached Civil Courts and filed suit for recovery of pronote amounts and obtained attachment orders against leave salary only but no civil court attached the Gratuity, Provident fund and Group Insurance.. Further, the civil Courts ordered the respondents to attach the permissible amounts from the death benefits of petitioner’s husband. It is also contended by petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner has made representation dated 7 27.12.2021 for release of death benefits along with all requisite copies of documents such as Death Certificate, Family Members Certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer and Ration Card to the 3rd respondent but no action has been taken. 10. It is to be noted that as per Section 60 (1) (k) of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, reads as follows: 60. Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree .- (1) The following property is liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree, namely, lands, houses or other buildings, goods, money, bank-notes, cheques, bills of exchange, hundis, promissory notes, Government securities, bonds or other securities for money, debts, shares in a corporation and, save as hereinafter mentioned, all other saleable property, movable or immovable, belonging to the judgment-debtor, or over which, or the profits of which, he has a disposing power which he may exercise for his own benefit, whether the same be held in the name of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf: Provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely:- (a)… … … (k) all compulsory deposits and other sums in or derived from any fund to which the Provident Funds Act, [1925] [Substituted by Act 9 of 1937, Section 2, for " 1897" .] (19 of 1925), for the time being applies, in so far as they are declared by the said Act not to be liable to attachment; 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and on a perusal of the above provision, the Gratuity, Provident Fund shall not be liable to attachment, this Court is of the considered view, inclined to dispose of the writ petition while declaring the action of the respondents as illegal and arbitrary. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s application/representation dated 27.12.2021 and release all the service terminal benefits consequent upon the 8 death of her husband to the petitioner, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 13. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date : 28-03-2025 Gvl 9 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITON No.5374 of 2022 Date : 28.03.2025 Gvl