IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26585 of 2010 Between: Malipeddi Varalakshmi Grace … Petitioner And The Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri B. Chandrasekhar Counsel for the respondents: Smt. S. Nanda This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26585 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner, unfortunate as she is, is forced to litigate for receiving what is legally due from the respondents due to obvious lack of foresight on the part of her husband, who is no more. The petitioner is admittedly the legally wedded wife of Malipeddi Joji, who died while working as advocate clerk at a very young age. (He is hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”.) The deceased registered himself under the A.P. Advocate Clerks Welfare Fund Act, 1992 (for short, “the Act”). This registration took place prior to his marriage. In the form of nomination, the deceased has nominated his nephew by name Tentati Pradeep Kumar, S/o. late Nooka Raju, Tailors Colony, Tuni. As the petitioner’s ill-luck would have it, she lost her husband on 01.11.2008. Respondent No.1 has prepared a cheque for Rs.5,000/- in the name of T. Pradeep Kumar, the nominee, towards funeral expenses. It has come out at the hearing that the said cheque could not be dispatched, as the office of respondent No.2 did not have correct address of the nominee. The petitioner has approached the respondents with representations for payment of the death benefit under the Act following the death of her husband. By letter, dated 24.12.2008, the Secretary of A.P. Advocate Clerks Welfare Fund informed the petitioner that as the deceased nominated his nephew T. Pradeep Kumar as his nominee, the latter is entitled to receive the death benefits in terms of Section 16(2) of the Act. In her affidavit, the petitioner stated that the nomination was made prior to the marriage of the deceased, that the nominee had not made any attempt or showed any interest in receiving the amount for distribution among the legal heirs of the deceased according to law and that the petitioner and her son are made to starve on account of denial of death benefits to them, who are the only legal heirs entitled to receive the same. In the counter affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Advocate Clerks Welfare Fund Committee, the status of the petitioner as the legally wedded wife of the deceased is admitted. However, it is averred that as the deceased has nominated his nephew prior to his marriage and has not changed the nomination after marriage in terms of Section 15(8) of the Act, the nominee alone is entitled to receive the death benefit of the deceased as per Section 16(2) of the Act. Legally speaking, the petitioner, not being the nominee, is not entitled to receive the amount from the respondents. However, the settled legal position is that the person, who is nominated to receive the benefits, has the legal duty to distribute the same among the legal heirs of the deceased in accordance with the governing law (see Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta and others[1]). The petitioner being the legally wedded wife of the deceased and her son are entitled to receive the death benefit even though in the first instance the amount is payable to the nominee. As unfortunately the deceased has not changed the nomination after his marriage in favour of the petitioner, the relief claimed by the petitioner to direct payment of the death benefit to her by the respondents cannot be granted. However, as there is absolutely no dispute about the status of the petitioner as the legally wedded wife of the deceased, there is no justification whatsoever to keep the death benefit with the respondents without paying the same on the ground that the nominee has not come forward to receive the same. As the respondents pleaded that the correct address of the nominee is not available, they are directed to issue a public notice through publication in one of the newspapers published in regional language having circulation in the State of A.P. If T. Pradeep Kumar, the nominee, does not come forward to receive the payment within 30 days of such publication, which shall be indicated as the notice period in the paper publication, the respondents shall pay the death benefit under the Act to the petitioner on her approaching them. In the event, payment is made to T. Pradeep Kumar, the nominee of the deceased, he shall distribute the same in accordance with the personal law to the petitioner, her son and other family members of the deceased, if any entitled to receive the same. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, WPMP.No.33954 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 26.12.2011 ES [1] (2009) 10 SCC 680