IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13617 of 2008 Between: Smt.Geedimudla Ratnamma W/o.Late G.Yadagiri R/o.Plot No.238, Videhi Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. by its Depot Manager, Hayatnagar Depot, R.R. District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents in not releasing all death benefits of my husband vide his staff No.E-204817. Even though the Petitioner name was shown as nominee in the all the Forms is bad and illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents to release all the death benefits to the Petitioner with interest from the date of sanction till the payment is made in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KURITIBHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13617 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the wife of one Sri G.Yadagiri, who was employed as a Driver in Hayatnagar Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. He is said to have died on 25.09.2007. The petitioner submitted representations, dated 20.10.2007 and 01.06.2008, to the respondents, with a prayer to extend the death-cum-retirement benefits of the deceased-employee. The grievance of the petitioner is that no action has been taken on the representations and the amounts are being released in favour of another woman, by name Salamma. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. On 27.06.2008, when the writ petition came up for admission, this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel to ascertain the existing state of affairs in the matter. It is stated that the deceased-employee named one Smt. Salamma as his nominee, to receive the benefit under SBT scheme, and a sum of Rs.19,995/- has since been paid to her. It is also stated that there is no clear nomination as regards provident fund, gratutity etc. As of now, there exist two sets of claims for the benefits of the deceased-employee; one by the petitioner and the other by one Smt. Salamma. The respondents would not be in a position to resolve the controversy. If the petitioner is so advised, he has to approach the competent civil Court and obtain succession certificate duly impleading Salamma. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner, to work out her remedies in a civil Court, duly impleading the effected person. The respondents are directed not to release any further amounts for a period of four (4) weeks. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 04.07.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13617 of 2008 Date: 04.07.2008 JSU