IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.20736 OF 2011 Date:22.07. 2011 Between:- D.Srinivas .. Petitioner And D.Laxmi and others. .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.20736 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not giving share in the gratuity, provident fund and L.I.C. policy Nos.682974166, 683365339, 684017108, 684032044, 685565743, 684043192 and 682765034 to petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and direct the respondents to give 50% of share in the gratuity, provident fund and all other benefits from the Singareni Collieries and LIC Policies. 2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 is the second wife of his father, late Dasari Chandraiah, who worked as General Mazdoor in Singareni Collieries at Sreerampur, and died on 23.06.2011 in a road accident. His father and his mother, who is the first wife of his father, have no children and so, they adopted the petitioner and recorded him as dependant and child in the personal details of Singareni employees. As the mother of the petitioner died, his father married respondent No.1 and they also have no children. After demise of the petitioner’s father, respondent No.1 has been staying with her brother, who is highly influenced person and Sarpanch, at Rukmapur Village, Choppadandi Mandal, Karimnagar District. So, respondent No.1 is trying to get all the benefits of his father from respondent Nos.2 to 5 with the help of her brother by avoiding him. His father was appointed in the respondent organization on 10.02.1988. So, the mother of the petitioner, late Suguna, was declared as nominee for all the benefits, but after her demise, the name of respondent No.1 was declared as nominee for all the benefits. The father of the petitioner also took some L.I.C. policies wherein the name of the nominee was changed to respondent No.1. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are going to give the gratuity, provident fund and the L.I.C. policy amount of Rs.4,20,000/- respectively to respondent No.1 only. The father of the petitioner showed the petitioner as one of the dependants in the Singareni records. If respondent Nos.2 to 5 give the amount to respondent No.1, the petitioner will not get any amount. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries contended that the name of respondent No.1 has been shown as a nominee in the nomination with regard to the entitlement of retirement benefits of the deceased employee and hence, respondent No.1 is entitled for the gratuity and provident fund benefits. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 contended that the name of the petitioner was not shown as a nominee in the L.I.C. policies and therefore, he is not entitled for the said amount. 6. The petitioner claims to be the adopted child of the deceased employee. Therefore, there is a disputed question of fact with regard to the entitlement of the benefits of the deceased employee. As per the nomination, respondent No.1 was shown as nominee in the L.I.C. policies as well as in the gratuity and provident fund. When there is a serious dispute with regard to entitlement of terminal benefits of deceased employee, the same cannot be adjudicated exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Therefore, the Writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedies available to him under law. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 22nd July, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.20736 OF 2011 Date:22.07.2011 AMD