IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1880 OF 2005 Between: S.S.N.Sharma ..... APPELLANT AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Labour, Employment, Training & Factories (LAB) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabaed and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR) The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P. No. 3085 of 2005 is the appellant. By order dated 22.2.2005, a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the said writ petition upholding the insistence by the Labour Department of the State upon the appellant producing a relinquishment certificate from the wife of the deceased employee for remittance of the gratuity amount due and payable to the said employee. The appellant is the brother of the deceased employee. It is an admitted fact that the wife of the deceased employee divorced him during his lifetime. The employee thereafter died on 1.1.1997. As per the Will executed by him, his brother, the appellant herein is entitled to his terminal benefits. Owing to the inaction on the part of the department in paying him the terminal benefits, the appellant approached this Court by way of W.P. No. 34347 of 1997. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 2.3.1998 directing the Assistant Commissioner of Labour to give notice to the wife of the deceased employee; to give her a reasonable opportunity to admit or deny the claim of the appellant and thereafter pass appropriate orders. It is stated that pursuant to the aforestated direction, the appellant was asked to produce a succession certificate/legal heir certificate for release of the terminal benefits of his deceased brother. The appellant thereupon obtained the succession certificate dated 29.11.2002 from the Court of the I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in O.P. No. 238 of 2000. Copy of the same is placed on record and reflects that the wife of the deceased employee was also a party to the proceedings. When the said succession certificate was produced before the authorities, the impugned proceeding dated 31.8.2004 came to be issued insisting upon a relinquishment certificate from the wife of the deceased employee for processing the payment of gratuity in favour of the appellant. The learned Single Judge, being apprised of the aforestated facts, was however of the opinion that the wife of the deceased employee has to relinquish her right over the death benefits of her husband and that the appellant could not claim the same as a matter of right. Holding so, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition. In the light of the admitted fact that the wife of the deceased employee divorced him during his lifetime, it is manifest that the legal relationship of husband and wife ceased to exist. Further, she was a party to the proceedings in O.P. No. 238 of 2000 which resulted in the succession certificate dated 29.11.2002 being issued in favour of the appellant. Pertinent to note, the said succession certificate spoke of entitlement of the appellant to not only leave salary, earned leave encashment and GIC of his deceased brother but also to gratuity and provident fund. In such circumstances, the insistence by the respondents upon a relinquishment certificate from the wife of the deceased employee appears to be superfluous and unnecessary. Once the appellant produced a succession certificate from the competent civil court and the wife of the deceased employee was a party to such proceedings, we are of the opinion that no further exercise is required by the appellant to demonstrate his entitlement to the terminal benefits of his deceased brother under the will. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. The respondents shall settle the gratuity and provident fund amounts due and payable to the deceased employee by remitting the same to his brother, the appellant herein. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed __________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar October 13, 2011 MAS