Deepa S vs Ponnamma M.V

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 664 Ker
Judgement Date : 7 July, 2025

Kerala High Court

Deepa S vs Ponnamma M.V on 7 July, 2025

                                                            2025:KER:49104
W.A No.506 of 2020​ ​     ​       ​
                                         1

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                      PRESENT

    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI

                                         &

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

     MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1947

                              WA NO. 506 OF 2020

          AGAINST   THE       JUDGMENT       DATED   20.02.2020   IN   WP(C)

NO.19306 OF 2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT:

              DEEPA S​
              AGED 51 YEARS​
              W/O.LATE HIRAN,ANUPAMA HOUSE,ERAMALLOOR.P.O,
              CHERTHALA-688537.


              BY ADVS. ​
              SHRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN​
              SRI.SUBIN K SUDHEER​
              SHRI.AMAL BABY​
              SHRI.AJAY GOPAL​
              SHRI.NANDUKRISHNA D.​

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1,2,3&5:

      1       PONNAMMA M.V​
              W/O.LATE GANGADHARAN,PUNNASSERIL, PATTUKULANGARA.P.O,
              THURAVOOR, CHERTHALA-688532. (DECEASED)

      2       UNION OF INDIA,​
              REP.BY THE MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING,
                                                   2025:KER:49104
W.A No.506 of 2020​ ​   ​   ​
                                 2

              ROOM NO.552,A WING SHASTRI BHAVAN,NEW DELHI-110001.

      3       THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER,​
              PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICE, ALL INDIA RADIO,MYLAPORE,
              CHENNAI-600004.

      4       THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,​
              ALL INDIA RADIO,KOCHI-680021.

      5       THE CHIEF MANAGER,​
              STATE BANK OF INDIA,MYLAPORE BRANCH,46/1,LUZ CHURCH
              ROAD, MYLAPORE,CHENNAI-600004. ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED.

  ADDL.R6     SONIYA,​
              AGED 24 YEARS,D/O.LATE HIRAN,GRACE HAVEN, GARDEN
              VILLA,THENGOD,KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM, PIN-682030. IMPLEADED
              AS ADDITIONAL R6 AS PER ORDER DATED 30/3/2021 IN
              I.A.2/2021 IN WA 506/2020.

  ADDL.R7     MRUDHUSREE, AGED 32,​
              D/O. LATE SHEENA, PUNNASERIL, PATTUKULANGARA.P.O.,
              THURAVOOR, CHERTHALA.(LEGAL HEIR OF RESPONDENT 1 IS
              IMPLEADED AS ADDL R7 AS PER ORDER DATED 5/2/2025 IN
              I.A.1/2025 IN W.A. 506/2020)


              BY ADVS. ​
              SMT.PREETHA ANIL RAVEENDRAN​
              SMT.MAHESWARY.G., SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL​
              SHRI.M.JITHESH MENON​
              SRI.P.SHANES METHAR
              SRI.RAJAN JOSE​


     THIS   WRIT  APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.07.2025, THE COURT ON 07.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                           2025:KER:49104
W.A No.506 of 2020​ ​     ​     ​
                                        3

                              JUDGMENT

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 arises out of the judgment dated 20.02.2020 in WP(C) No.19306 of 2019 whereby the learned Single Judge disposed the writ petition with certain directions.

2. The appellant is the 4th respondent in the writ petition whereas the 1st respondent is the petitioner and respondents 2 to 5 are the respondents. The 1st respondent filed the writ petition seeking disbursement of Rs.9 lakh as Death Cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) payable following the death of her son by name G.Hiran who happens to be the husband of the appellant. G.Hiran, while in employment with All India Radio, expired on 19.04.2017. He had nominated the appellant and the 1st respondent to receive the DCRG in equal proportion i.e. 50% each. The total amount of DCRG was Rs.20 lakhs. The Department authorised payment of Rs.18 lakhs in equal shares of Rs.9 lakhs each to the mother and the appellant-widow, withholding a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. The 3rd respondent, as per 2025:KER:49104 W.A No.506 of 2020​ ​ ​ ​ 4 Ext.P4 letter, informed the 1st respondent that two separate challans for payment of Rs.9 lakhs each has been submitted in the Mylapore Branch of State Bank of India, in accordance with the nomination exercised by Late Hiran. However, due to inadvertent mistake of the Bank, the entire amount was credited to the account of the widow i.e. the appellant. However, this mistake was noticed and thereafter an amount of Rs.9 lakh was deposited in the account of the mother.

3. The grievance of the appellant is that since the 1st respondent/mother has already expired, the amount of Rs.9 lakhs deposited in the account of the 1st respondent be directed to be refunded along with interest to her Savings Bank account at Padivattom branch.

4. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant as well as the 1st respondent would be entitled to get a sum of Rs.9 lakhs each and accordingly, the said amount was also paid, and disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:

2025:KER:49104 W.A No.506 of 2020​ ​ ​ ​ 5 "The 5th respondent Bank shall therefore release a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19306 of 2019 without any further delay. Smt.Ponnamma would also be entitled to interest on the said amount as admissible to the FD account in which it remained deposited from the date of deposit till its release. It goes without saying that the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.215 of 2020 would be free to withdraw the balance amount in her FD account in accordance with law".
Learned Single Judge also granted liberty to the parties to approach appropriate forum for resolving further disputes, if any, between them.
​ 5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer of the appellant and submitted that as per the nomination made by deceased Hiran, 50% of the amount has been paid to the appellant whereas 50% has been paid to the 1st respondent. In such a situation, no directions can be issued to claim the amount from the account of the 1st respondent who has already expired. Moreover, the 1st respondent was suffering from cancer and she had already spent the amount lying in her account. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in disposing the writ petition.
                                                                2025:KER:49104
W.A No.506 of 2020​ ​        ​        ​
                                             6

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. This Court finds force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents particularly taking into consideration the fact that the amounts have already been deposited as per the nomination and as such after the death of the 1st respondent, such directions cannot be issued. However, learned Single Judge has already granted liberty to the parties to approach appropriate forum, if there is any dispute.

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in disposing the writ petition. Accordingly, we refrain from interfering with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.

The writ appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

​     ​         ​     ​      ​        ​      ​      Sd/-
                             SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
​     ​         ​     ​      ​   ​   ​   JUDGE

           ​    ​     ​      ​        ​       ​   Sd/-
                                             SYAM KUMAR V.M
                                                  JUDGE
smp