IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:15913 of 1999 Between: 1 I. Janaki W/o late I. Nageswara Rao R/o Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. 2 I. Ramanujam Kumar S/o Late I. Nageswara Rao R/o Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Rep by Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager (HCR), A.P.S.R.T.C., JBS Picket, Secunderabad. 3 Smt. I. Sujatha W/o Kishore Kumar C/o 10-61, New Gaddiannaram Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR. K.RAMAMOHAN MAHADEVA FOR MR.K.G.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2:MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the pensionary and other benefits to the petitioners and in not providing compensatory relief to them including compassionate appointment to petitioner No.2 on the death of their husband and father respectively, as illegal. Petitioner No.1 claims to be the wife of one I.Nageswara Rao (for short ‘the deceased employee’), former employee of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’). Petitioner No.2 claims to be his son. According to the petitioners, the deceased employee during his lifetime married the elder sister of petitioner No.1 and that she died issueless on 28.06.1988. It is the further case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 initially married one G.V.Subbarian and she had three children through him and that he died. They pleaded that thereafter, the deceased employee married petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 was born out of the said wedlock. After the death of the deceased employee, they approached the respondents for the above-mentioned benefits. As the respondents have not paid the said benefits, they filed Writ Petition No.4155 of 1999, which was disposed of by this Court vide its order, dated 26.04.1999 by directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioners after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to them. In pursuance of the said order, the respondents passed order, dated 03.06.1999 wherein it is inter alia mentioned as under: “As per records, Sri I.N.Rao nominated Smt. Subha as wife for receiving benefits of Provident Fund, Staff Benevolent-cum-Thrift Fund, Gratuity and Cooperative Credit Society amount during 1983. As per our administrative instructions, if the employee desires to alter the nominations executed earlier, he has to submit notice of cancellation of earlier nomination along with revised nominations. But later nominations were submitted by Sri I.N.Rao towards Staff Benevolent-cum-Thrift Fund and Provident Fund on 12.11.90 in favour of Smt. I.Janaki showing her as his wife. He has not submitted any evidence of his remarriage or death certificate of Smt. Subha and no intimation was given for cancellation of earlier nomination given in favour of Smt. Subha. In the absence of valid evidences, the claims made by both Kum. I.Sujatha stated to be the daughter and Smt. I.Janaki stated to be the wife of late I.N.Rao, could not be accepted. As such, in order to settle the accounts, you are requested to obtain a succession certificate from the competent court duly impleading Kum. I.Sujatha stated to be the daughter of late I.N.Rao, in view of rival claims received in the case.” Questioning this order, the present writ petition is filed. In the counter-affidavit, the contents of the impugned order have been reiterated. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by Sri Ramamohan Mahadeva, learned counsel for the petitioners and I am of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The fact that the deceased employee earlier nominated Smt. Subha, who is his first wife is not in dispute. The later nomination of petitioner No.1 for payment of Provident Fund and Staff Benevolent-cum-Thrift Fund is not considered by the Corporation as legally valid in the absence of proof of valid marriage by the deceased employee for the second time. Therefore, while not accepting the rival claims of the petitioners and respondent No.3, who claimed to be the daughter of the deceased employee through his first wife, the Corporation left the petitioners free to approach the civil Court and obtain a succession certificate to claim the retirement and other benefits consequent on the death of the deceased employee. As the Corporation is not expected to decide the inter se disputes regarding the legal status of the parties, the stand taken by it does not suffer from any illegality. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent civil Court for issue of succession certificate. In the event such a certificate is issued, they are entitled to approach the Corporation for grant of retirement and other benefits. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.Nos.19630 and 19631 of 1999 and 27688 of 2000 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd DECEMBER, 2008. kvni