IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.16302 of 2001 BETWEEN N. Kanaka and another. ... PETITIONERS AND LIC of India rep. by its Divisional Manager, Rajahmundry and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. Y.V. RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: MR. M.V. PRASAD MR. D.V.S. NAGARAJU The Court made the following order: ORDER: The original writ petitioner has sought a Mandamus against the inaction of the respondents in finalizing and settling his terminal benefits in spite of several representations. During the pendency of the writ petition the original writ petitioner died and his wife is on record as his legal representative. 2. Petitioner, who was working in the respondent’s organization, was due to retire in September 1995, but just few days before that he was found to have committed a misconduct of tampering three official receipts for an amount of Rs.548.50 ps. In the enquiry held against him, he admitted the charge and requested for exoneration by grant of pardon. He was, however, terminated from service and thereafter his terminal benefits and particularly, gratuity and compassionate allowance were not settled. 3. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit mentioning that during the pendency of the writ petition the case of the petitioner was sympathetically considered and gratuity amount of Rs.66,400/-, admissible to him, was released under covering letter of the respondent’s dated 13.07.2005. 4. Relief in part, was already granted to the petitioner. So far as compassionate allowance is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 wherein Rule 33 is relied upon to show that there is no prohibition from considering the case of the petitioner even for compassionate allowance at least not exceeding 2/3rd of the pension. 5. The respondents, however, contend that in view of the fact that the petitioner has already received provident fund amount with provident fund contribution from the corporation in the year 1997 itself and the same being in lieu of pensionary benefits, petitioner cannot be extended both the benefits. 6. Since the pensionary benefits and provident fund contribution from the employer are in lieu of either of the benefits, the petitioner can only seek either provident fund benefit or compassionate allowance under pension scheme. Since he has already received the benefit of provident fund, the petitioner is rightly not extended the benefit of compassionate allowance. In that view of the matter, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 25, 2010 DSK