THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 518 of 2001 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is instituted by the wife of a deceased employee of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’), seeking directions to the said Corporation for payment of terminal benefits. The case of the petitioner is that her husband, while working as a Conductor attached to Mahabubabad Depot in Warangal District, met with an untimely death on 27.04.1997 leaving behind her and a son as dependants. The husband of the writ petitioner appears to have rendered more than 20 years of service to the Corporation and hence, he is entitled to receive the terminal benefits. Since they have not been settled for no valid or justifiable reason, in spite of repeated representations made by the petitioner, she instituted this Writ Petition. It is specifically asserted that there are no charges pending or any disciplinary action initiated against the deceased husband of the petitioner while he was in service and hence, there is no justification whatsoever for delaying the payment of the terminal benefits. A counter-affidavit has been filed in the matter. It is stated that the employee, in fact, retired from service on 31.05.1996 and hence, he died after he retired from service, but not while he was in service. It was further stated that the sister of the deceased employee, one Smt. Deekonda Sathemma, produced a legal heir certificate, dated 02.07.1997 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Thorrur Mandal, Warangal District, certifying the said Smt. Sathemma, W/o Muthi Lingaiah as the legal heir of the deceased employee. Therefore, the provident fund claim, upon submission of the succession certificate alone was liable to be settled and hence, the party has been advised to produce a succession certificate. Smt. Sathemma has approached the Junior Civil Judge’s Court at Mahabubabad and also produced the succession certificate issued by the said Court. Hence, the provident fund amount of Rs.42,922/- was paid to her on 10.01.2001 and gratuity amount of Rs.35,388/- was also paid to her on 17.04.2000. A sum of Rs.2,640/- and a sum of Rs.8,367/- representing some of the benefits payable were, in fact, paid on 25.04.1997 to the employee i.e. prior to his death. The employee has acknowledged it. It is rather unfortunate that the writ petitioner herein, who is said to be the wife, has been completely kept in dark without being informed of any of the developments. If only the Corporation had replied to her representations, pointing out about the parallel claim made by Smt. D. Sathemma, who is said to be the sister of the deceased employee, perhaps, the writ petitioner herein would have taken steps to contest the correctness and veracity of such a claim. It is obvious that when the deceased employee has a wife and a son surviving him, his sister could not have been declared to the exclusion of such a wife and son, either as a legal representative or as a successor to his estate. There appears to be something fishy about the entire transaction. However, the Corporation is bound by the orders passed by the Courts concerned. They cannot sit in judgment over such orders and they are bound to comply with the same. Whenever there is a parallel claim made by someone else, it would have been proper for the Corporation and its officials to bring it to the notice of all other claimants about such parallel claims, so that in the presence of each other, the claims would have been adjudicated by a properly constituted Court. That would have solved the problem once and for all for every one concerned, as it turned out now the sister of the deceased employee has received the terminal benefits payable to the deceased employee, on the strength and basis of a legal heir certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer and a succession certificate issued by a competent civil Court. Sri P. Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the widow of the deceased and his son are alive, they could not have been divested of their right to succeed to a deceased male Hindu. Since the sister of the deceased employee has received the terminal benefits, at best, she is liable to be treated only as a trustee. Therefore, it is open to the petitioner herein to institute appropriate civil proceedings for recovery of the terminal benefits said to have been received by the said Smt. Deekonda Sathemma from the respondent- Corporation. It could be appropriate, if the writ petitioner applies for the registry to furnish a certified copy of the counter-affidavit filed in this Writ Petition, so that the same can be produced by the writ petitioner herein in any civil suit, which she may prefer to institute for recovering the moneys said to have been paid to and received by Smt. Deekonda Sathemma by the respondent-Corporation representing the terminal benefits payable to the deceased employee. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 11th November 2009 ksld