Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Atchi Lalitha Devi, vs The Visakhapatnam Port Trust, on 23 August, 2024
1
*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
+WRIT PETITION No.4517 of 2021
Between:
# Atchi Lalitha Devi, W/o. late Atchi Venkata Ramana Reddy
... Petitioner
And
$ The Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam,
Rep. by its chairman and another.
.... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 23.08.2024
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
- Yes -
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law
Reporters/Journals
- Yes -
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair
copy of the Judgment?
- Yes -
___________________________________
DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
2
* THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
+WRIT PETITION No.4517 of 2021
% 23.08.2024
Between:
# Atchi Lalitha Devi, W/o. late Atchi Venkata Ramana Reddy
... Petitioner
And
$ The Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam,
Rep. by its chairman and another.
.... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P. Rajasekhar
Counsel for Respondents:
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
3
APHC010068742021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 4517/2021
Between:
Atchi Lalitha Devi, ...PETITIONER
AND
The Visakhapatnam Port Trust and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P RAJASEKHAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
The Court made the following:
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
the following relief:
"....to issue WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ order or direction to
DECLARE the proceedings No IMEEE/M0F/SW/4435/132 dated 05.02.2021 issued
by 2ndrespondent rejecting family
amily pension to the petitioner consequent upon the death
of her husband late AtchiVenkataRamana Reddy Employee No PEM0087063 BOO
OHC without considering Award dated 29.10.2018 in LSA.NO.8/12/2018 passed by
Honble District Legal Services Authority Viskahap
Viskahapatnam
atnam as being illegal, arbitrary and
violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to Article 14 16 Et 300A of
Constitution of India and consequently command the respondents to arrange family
pension with all attendant monetary benefits forthwith
forthwith in the interest of justice and
pass..."
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner's husband, by name,
late AtchiVenkataRamana Reddy worked as BDO/OHC in M & EE
Department of Respondent Port Trust, and was superannuated on
31.07.2014. Later, he died on 18.08.2020 while receiving pension. On
15.09.2020 and 06.10.2020 the petitioner addressed letters duly
enclosed the Death certificate of her husband to the Respondents
requesting them to release family pension to her. The petitioern has also
submitted family members' certificate and wedding card with her late
husband. it is stated that, earlier on account of matrimonial disputes
between the petitioner and her husband, he got recorded his mother's
name as nominee in his service register, but she predeceased him on
18.09.2015.Thereafter vide an Award dated 29.10.2018 LSA NO:
8/12/2018 by Hon'ble District Legal Services Authority, Viskahaptanam
petitioner's husband agreed to enter her name as his nominee in his
service register maintained by the Respondent authorities and also in
the medical book for all service benefits including family pension. The
petitioner submitted another representation Dated 02.12.2020 in
continuation of earlier representation duly enclosing all the documents
and requested the Respondents to release the family pension at the
earliest. Finally she also got issued legal notice on 13.10.2020.The
2ndRespondent vide proceedings No: IM&EE/MOF/SW/4435/132, dated
05.02.2021 rejected the case of petitioner on the ground that as her
husband passedaway without submitting any revised nomination to
incorporate her name in their records, which is illegal and contrary to the
Award passed by Hon'ble DLSA, Visakhapatnam. Hence, the present
writ petition.
3. Heard Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the
contents made in the petition, submits that, withholding of family pension
is not permissible under law by the Respondents as the same is matter
of right to property under Article 300-A of Constitution of India. He
further submits that the petitioner has a vested right to receive family
pension being the legally wedded wife of her husband and also as per
the Award/Decree passed by the District Legal Services Authority. He
submits that the decree/award of the DLSA is a 'judgment in rem' and it
is not only binding on the parties but also on the public authorities
including respondents herein. Hence the action of the Respondents in
denying the family pension of the petitioner through the impugned
proceeding is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles
of natural justice. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to
pass appropriate orders.
5. Perused the material available on record.
6. As seen from the Award of DLSA, wherein, it was mentioned that
the respondent agreed to enter the name of the petitioner in his
service register maintained by the Authorities of Visakhapatnam Port
Trust and the respondent undertakes that he would cooperate and
appear before the Authorities at all times for completion of entering the
name of the petitioner in the records and he undertakes that he would
do the formalities done at the earliest.
7. On a perusal of the above, it is observed that, the petitioner's
husband and the petitioners were compromised before the District Legal
Services Authority, Visakhaptnam vide Award dated 29.10.2018 that
they would live separately each other without causing any harassment
or by filing any cases or complaints against each other. It is also
observed that the petitioner's husband agreed to enter the name of the
petitioner in his Service Register maintained by the Authorities of
Visakhapatnam Port Trust. Thereafter, the petitioner's husband died on
18.08.2020. So, in view of the above terms, the respondent authorities
have to enter the name of the petitioner but whatever the reason,
without entering the name of the petitioner, the petitioner's husband was
passed away. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition
by setting aside the impugned notice.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned
proceedings No.IM&EE/MOF/SW/4435/132, dated 05.02.2021 issued by
the 2nd respondent is hereby set aside. Further, the respondent
authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of
Award dated 29.10.2018 in LSA No.8/12/2018 in O.P.No.255/2014
before the Lok Adalat, Visakhapatnam, and re-examine the issue and
pass appropriate reasoned order and to release family pension to the
petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. There shall be no order as to costs.
10. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand
closed.
_________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 23 -08-2024
Gvl
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
Date : 23 .8.2024
Gvl
