IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27421 of 2008 Between: Kesani Kotamma ..... Petitioner AND Allahabad Bank, A Govt., of India undertaking Rep., by its Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Main Road, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M.S.V.S. Sudha Rani for Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu Counsel for respondents 1&2: Sri B. Damodar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri G. Vidyasagar This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27421 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay the petitioner’s share of the death-cum- retirement benefits of her son. While working as Cashier with respondent No.1 Bank, the petitioner’s son died in harness on 02.05.2005. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite her being nominated for receiving the death-cum-retirement benefits of her son, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not been paying her share. A perusal of the record shows that respondent No.3 earlier filed WP.No.5273 of 2007, wherein she sought for a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay her share of retirement benefits even though the petitioner herein was nominated by her husband. By order dated 07.03.2008, this Court disposed of the said writ petition, wherein it is observed as under: “It is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner was employed with the respondents and he died while in service. The nomination made by an employee, as to the payment of benefits or pension, cannot be treated as final, and disbursement of such amounts must be made as per the entitlement of the respective legal heirs. Though the mother is said to be the sole nominee for receiving the benefits, the respondents are under obligation to disburse the same to all the class-I legal heirs. The legal heir certificate furnished by the petitioner is incomplete inasmuch as the name of the mother of the deceased is not mentioned. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the insistence by the respondents, on production of succession or legal heir certificate, which is comprehensive in nature. The mother of the deceased employee is not a party to this writ petition. The fact, however, remains that being a class-I legal heir, she too would be entitled to be paid a share out of the benefits, on par with other class-I legal heirs. The arrangement would be subject to the claim of any of the parties to seek adjudication of their respective rights.” At the hearing, Smt. M.S.V.S. Sudha Rani representing Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for respondent No.3 do not dispute the above-reproduced order and both of them submitted that their clients have no objection for disbursement of their respective shares, as directed by this Court in the abovementioned order. In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to forthwith disburse the respective shares of the petitioner and respondent No.3 as per the observations made by this Court in WP.No.5273 of 2007. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.35926 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 27.04.2009 ES