Telangana High Court
Savari Gayathri vs The State Of Telangana on 1 July, 2022
Bench: B.Vijaysen Reddy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY
W.P.Nos.4751/2020 & 14215/2021
COMMON ORDER:
In both these writ petitions, petitioner is common and the issues are
interlinked and therefore they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. W.P.No.4751 of 2020 is filed seeking a direction to the respondents
1 to 4 to pay death benefits and family pension of her father late Sri
S.Narsing Rao along with interest @ 10% per annum. W.P.No.14215 of
2021 is filed seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to pay the entire
gratuity amount of her father late S.Narsing Rao amounting to
Rs.4,65,175/- as sanctioned by 3rd respondent vide proceedings
No.4133/A1/2021-2022/287 dated 3.6.2021.
3. According to the petitioner, she is the adopted daughter of late
S.Narsinga Rao. Her father late S.Narsinga Rao worked as General
Purpose Employee (Sewerage) in Gowliguda Section, O & M Division-IV,
HMWS & SB, Hyderabad and while in service he expired on 26.9.2014.
The natural father of petitioner S.Sateesh gave in adoption to his natural
brother and she was adopted by late S.Narsinga Rao under a registered
adoption deed dated 14.8.2013 vide document No.122/2013. Petitioner
was declared as legal heir of late S.Narsinga Rao vide judgment dated
16.8.2019 in AS.No.288 of 2017 on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which has become final.
4. It is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for respondents
that the deceased did not have five years left over service. In the counter
affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the representation of the
petitioner for compassionate appointment was considered and rejected vide
proceedings No.11727/C1/2015/373 dated 29.12.2017/20.1.2018.
Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed W.P.No.8931 of 2018. However,
it was stated in paragraph 11 of the counter that the claim with regard to
death benefits is concerned, the same will be considered on submission of
complete set of pension papers by the petitioner in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.263 (Fin. & Plg.) dated 23.11.1998. It was further stated that
the deceased Sri S.Narsing Rao while was working as General Purpose
Employee (Sewerage) in Gowliguda Section, O & M Division-IV, HMWS
& SB, Hyderabad has availed personal loan of Rs.4,00,000/- on 27.6.2011
from A.P. Grameena Vikas Bank, Ashok Nagar branch, Hyderabad. He
has given an undertaking to the effect that the loan instalments may be
deducted from his salary till the loan amount is completely repaid. As per
the Pay Bill Records maintained by the General Manager (Engg.) O&M
Dn-IV, the deceased employee has paid (39) instalments @ 9400/- per
month to the Bank till 13.10.2014 which was deducted from his salary.
Further, A.P. Grameena Vikas Bank, Ashok Nagar branch addressed letter
dated 22.8.2019 to the Board with a request to settle the dues for an
amount of Rs.3,21,234/- from the benefits of the deceased employee i.e.
late Sri S.Narsinga Rao.
5. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, as against the loan
component of Rs.4,00,000/-, petitioner's father paid 45 instalments @
Rs.9,400/- per month, which was deducted from his salary which is
totalling to Rs.4,23,000/-. Thus, deducting Rs.4,65,175/- sanctioned
towards gratuity was arbitrary and illegal. It is further stated that the
outstanding dues were adjusted without approaching competent Civil
Court and without there being any decree passed by the Civil Court,
therefore, the action of the respondents in adjusting the gratuity amount is
highly objectionable and illegal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for A.P. Grameena Bank submits that
as per the undertaking given by the petitioner, the gratuity amount was
adjusted towards outstanding dues. The learned counsel further contends
that the 2nd respondent stood as guarantor for the loan amount of late
S.Narsing Rao and irrevocable letter of authority was given by 2nd
respondent and the deceased gave authorisation to deduct from his
salary/retiral benefits including any other pensionary benefits.
7. However, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that even for
invoking the undertaking given by her father, the respondents are bound to
follow due procedure of law. Neither any notice was issued to her nor the
respondents have approached Civil Court for recovery of the alleged dues
and unilateral action was taken, deducting gratuity amount from a
deceased person's account, which is arbitrary and illegal.
8. As noted above, the respondents have unilaterally adjusted the
amount of Rs.4,65,175/- from the gratuity of late Sri S.Narasinga Rao
without notice to the petitioner. It is not disputed by the learned Standing
Counsel for A.P. Grameena Bank that the Bank has not approached Civil
Court for recovery of money or for attaching the gratuity amount of late
S.Narsinga Rao.
9. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that unilateral
adjustment of outstanding dues from the gratuity amount sanctioned by 3rd
respondent is illegal and contrary to the procedure established under law.
However, as the amount has already been released by 2nd respondent in
favour of A.P. Grameena Bank, the Bank is directed to keep an amount of
Rs.4,50,092/- in a separate bank account with due intimation to the
petitioner. The A.P. Grameena Bank is given liberty to invoke appropriate
legal remedies available under law within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. The release of sum of Rs.4,50,092/-
to the petitioner or A.P. Grameena Bank shall be subject to the outcome of
legal action/suit that may be instituted by the A.P. Grameena Bank.
10. Subject to the above, both the writ petitions are disposed of. The
miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
______________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
Date: 1.7.2022
DA
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY
W.P.Nos.4751/2020 & 14215/2021
1.7.2022
DA
